Fullsize revolvers 38 vs 44 vs 45?

[Dov]

Magnum revolvers have been my favorite for a long time, but age and health issues make magnums not a good choice anymore. At least with 4 to 6 inch guns. Still thinking about things like S&W X frame or long barreled Ruger SRH with scope or optic might be tolerable for hunting. Or possibly Ruger Redhawk in 357 though I'd prefer 44 or 45 for hunting.

So I'm arguing with myself if it makes sense for me to get 45 ACP/45 LC revolver.

I don't handload much, and that is unlikely to change for multiple reasons, or the 44 special would hold more interest.

I don't plan to get rid of my 357 N frame, will probably add more because 38's in them are still pain free to shoot, but keep thinking a 45 would be nice.

Thoughts?

[Dave T]

A 45 ACP revolver would give you the caliber you want and still allow for practice as 45 ACP ammo can occasionally be found. Unless you are a hand loader 44 Special and 45 Colt are going to be a problem. Ammo choices are not that great (wide) and both calibers are going to be expensive when you find them.

YMMV but that's been my experience, even before the current ammo shortages we are seeing.

Dave

[RJ]

Paging Malamute

[Crazy Dane]

What is the quarry and at what range will you be shooting at them?

My dad took several whitetail over the years with a 4 inch .357 Magnum and 158grn hollow points. In the past I have used .45 Colt to hunt whitetail and last year I took one with a 5 inch GP100 in .44 Special at 70 yards. I do load all of my own ammo. Suitable factory options are out there for the Special and Long Colt and , they may be hard to locate though.

[BehindBlueI's]

I have one of the Ruger Redhawk .45 Auto / .45 Colt revolvers. It did not work out of the box with .45 Auto and would have a lot of light strikes. Ruger "fixed" it but didn't. I finally had a 'smith friend of mine install a Bowen extended firing pin. He also found a nasty burr that was causing hammer drag. That fixed it and it runs like a top, now. Shooting .45 Auto through it is *very* low recoil. It's a very heavy gun. Oh, and I swapped out the little wood grips for a big rubber Pachy that makes it even easier to shoot. The bad is that point of impact is quite different between heavier Colt loads and the Auto loads, but I don't know how much of a problem that is for you.

If I had it to do over again, I wouldn't, but now that it's working it's a nice gun for what it is.

[TheNewbie]

I have one of the Ruger Redhawk .45 Auto / .45 Colt revolvers. It did not work out of the box with .45 Auto and would have a lot of light strikes. Ruger "fixed" it but didn't. I finally had a 'smith friend of mine install a Bowen extended firing pin. He also found a nasty burr that was causing hammer drag. That fixed it and it runs like a top, now. Shooting .45 Auto through it is *very* low recoil. It's a very heavy gun. Oh, and I swapped out the little wood grips for a big rubber Pachy that makes it even easier to shoot. The bad is that point of impact is quite different between heavier Colt loads and the Auto loads, but I don't know how much of a problem that is for you.

If I had it to do over again, I wouldn't, but now that it's working it's a nice gun for what it is.

How do you like shooting the 45LC?

[jh9]

A 45 ACP revolver would give you the caliber you want and still allow for practice as 45 ACP ammo can occasionally be found. Unless you are a hand loader 44 Special and 45 Colt are going to be a problem. Ammo choices are not that great (wide) and both calibers are going to be expensive when you find them.

YMMV but that's been my experience, even before the current ammo shortages we are seeing.

Dave

.44 special is up there with .38 super in terms of "calibers I've never seen sgammo out of stock on" during this whole kerfuffle. They are awash in both, even now.

Of course I wouldn't count on that being true in the future. But for now, .38sup/.44spl is the new .40s&w. Get it while you can.

[Dave T]

Well, since I'm a re-loader I don't follow ammo availability all that closely. 44 Special has always been a handloader's cartridge, not something you go looking for on the shelf cause it's just too bloody expensive. Much the same can be said for the 45 Colt. If you're willing to pay for it and you can find it, more power too you.

Dave

PS: Just visited the SGAmmo site. There aren't any 44 Special bargains there. Good grief!

[okie john]

Magnum revolvers have been my favorite for a long time, but age and health issues make magnums not a good choice anymore. At least with 4 to 6 inch guns. Still thinking about things like S&W X frame or long barreled Ruger SRH with scope or optic might be tolerable for hunting. Or possibly Ruger Redhawk in 357 though I'd prefer 44 or 45 for hunting.

So I'm arguing with myself if it makes sense for me to get 45 ACP/45 LC revolver.

I don't handload much, and that is unlikely to change for multiple reasons, or the 44 special would hold more interest.

I don't plan to get rid of my 357 N frame, will probably add more because 38's in them are still pain free to shoot, but keep thinking a 45 would be nice.

Thoughts?

Depends on what you want to hunt. Deer are not hard to kill and I’d shoot an elk with a 250-grain Keith SWC at 900 fps any day of the week. Loads like that don’t kick too bad in a single action revolver.

I once had a 45 ACP cylinder for my 45 Colt Bisley. Nice in theory but as noted, the POIs of 45 ACP and 45 Colt loads are nowhere near the same.

Keep an eye on your area’s better pawn shops for a 7½” Blackhawk in 45 ACP/45 Colt. Sometimes you can find one with just the ACP cylinder, and prices are generally lower because it’s “incomplete.”

ETA: This thread https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?40251-44-Magnum-vs-45-Colt-Magnumized&p=981120#post981120 went down the rabbit hole on the 45 Colt.


Okie John

[4given]

I went with a Ruger Blackhawk .44 Special and I love it. With a single action revolver you don't go through that many rounds so reloading for it is not that big a deal. A couple hundred rounds goes a long way.

240 - 250 gr SWC cast bullet, 7.5 grains of Unique and your done! The classic proven Skeeter Skelton load. Soft shooting and enough to take down any game in the CONUS.

[Malamute]

Magnum revolvers have been my favorite for a long time, but age and health issues make magnums not a good choice anymore. At least with 4 to 6 inch guns. Still thinking about things like S&W X frame or long barreled Ruger SRH with scope or optic might be tolerable for hunting. Or possibly Ruger Redhawk in 357 though I'd prefer 44 or 45 for hunting.

So I'm arguing with myself if it makes sense for me to get 45 ACP/45 LC revolver.

I don't handload much, and that is unlikely to change for multiple reasons, or the 44 special would hold more interest.

I don't plan to get rid of my 357 N frame, will probably add more because 38's in them are still pain free to shoot, but keep thinking a 45 would be nice.

Thoughts?

First, since you arent a serious handloader, this is a poor time to try a gun in a new chambering. Ammo and components arent as easy to find right now. If by age and health you mean recoil, a single action revolver in the same chambering and load as a double action revolver is much softer feeling to shoot. The recoil doesnt slam the frame hump into the web of your shooting hand. When I tore the ligament in my right hand it took several years to be able to shoot a 22 right handed again, and as the healing progressed, I was able to shoot any given caliber and load much sooner in a single action gun than double action.

Many are looking at the smaller calibers as old man guns, and I am to a degree, but Im also keeping in the back of my mind that I like SA revolvers quite a lot and have shot them quite a lot, I dont feel too bad considering one as a defensive arm when the DA guns become problematic with regards to recoil. Same power value, less felt recoil. So, hunting gun? You dont really need much of what a DA revolver adds to the equation, and single actions are easier to shoot in any given caliber, so....Youre already supplied with 38/357 ammo, Id suggest get a single action Ruger in 357 and see how you like it. if you dont, it shouldnt be hard to sell.

[BehindBlueI's]

How do you like shooting the 45LC?

It's my favorite recreational cartridge, and I like to reload it as well. I like the versatility and I like the general feel of it. I do not enjoy the "Ruger Only" type loadings, but if you like the "high fiving a sledge hammer" feeling you might.

It's just a fun cartridge to shoot.

[peterb]

It's my favorite recreational cartridge, and I like to reload it as well. I like the versatility and I like the general feel of it. I do not enjoy the "Ruger Only" type loadings, but if you like the "high fiving a sledge hammer" feeling you might.

It's just a fun cartridge to shoot.

There’s something about shooting large-caliber light loads that’s fun. It’s a different feel than smaller calibers that might be comparable on paper.

[Malamute]

I for one prefer the much less sharp and piercing muzzle blast of a 44 spl or 45 Colt compared to a 357 magnum, but Ive rarely shot factory loads in most of my guns, so ammo cost and availability hasnt been a factor for the most part.

[OlongJohnson]

If one was going to content himself with shooting non-Ruger .45 Colt loads, is a flat top Blackhawk any real advantage for durability over a Model 25?

Is a non-Ruger .45 Colt load ballistically advantageous over a .45 Auto +P Gold Dot or HST? I'd have to convince myself there was some reason to go this way in addition to the P220, USP and GP100 I already have. Funsies and aesthetics might suffice.

I see the Lipsey's flat top 4 5/8 convertibles in 45/45 are listed at 36 oz on the Ruger site. The aluminum grip frames I linked in another thread recently will typically take out about six ounces. A 30-oz Bisley Ruger seems likely to be very fun and interesting.

(I noticed Ruger lists the .357/9mm version at 36 oz as well. Seems unlikely that the .357 and .45 wouldn't differ by at least an ounce. Maybe the answer is to get both so I can weigh them...)

ETA: There's discussion of the 50th Anniversary medium-frame .357 Flat Tops being ~44 oz due to a steel grip frame. Makes me think the 36 oz numbers above are with an aluminum grip frame, although I would still be surprised if the 45 weighed the same as the .357.

Wishing I knew what I know now back when okie john was selling his.

[okie john]

If one was going to content himself with shooting non-Ruger .45 Colt loads, is a flat top Blackhawk any real advantage for durability over a Model 25? Somewhat. The Ruger is simpler and stronger so it will hold up better over the long run.


Is a non-Ruger .45 Colt load ballistically advantageous over a .45 Auto +P Gold Dot or HST? Bullet choice is better. You can get 250-grain cast SWC and WFN designs in 45 Colt loads that are under 16k psi.


Wishing I knew what I know now back whenokie john was selling his.

Same here. I wanted someone from here to have that one.


Okie John

[JTMcC]

OP in my opinion being a non handloader .44 mag would be a better choice for you only because there is a LOT of mildly loaded 44 RM factory ammo and 44 spc as well at decent (normal) prices. A Ruger Blackhawk would be cheap and easy to find.

45 Colt, and 45 acp for most hunting purposes is best when handloaded. But either way you can go mild to wild, .44 just might be a bit easier and cheaper.

No real bad choice there but I'd lean just a slight bit toward the .44 side. The 45 acp option (if reliable and accurate) might even out the choice for me if one gun needed to do multiple tasks but the constant sight adjustments needed would be something to take into account.
A solid .357 with heavier bullets will do 75% of what the bigger bores will do, but I understand the draw and the utility of big bores well:).

[Bigghoss]

I picked up a Blackhawk not long ago with .45 ACP and LC cylinders. Fun to shoot and I can get freight train .45 Colt loads if I want or need that kind of horsepower in a handgun.

[Pizza Bob]

OP - I would usually, wholeheartedly recommend an N-frame in .45 ACP / AR, but given that you still hunt, I'm not sure that the ACP would do it for you. But the availability (in the good times) of ACP over factory .44 Spl or .45 C has a lot to recommend it. So I'm voting for the best of both worlds - find a suitable .45C N-frame (if you go with a 25-5 make sure that you measure the chamber throats) and then send the cylinder off to TK Custom or Pinnacle High Performance (I'm sure there are others, but those are two of the best known) and have it machined for moon clips. Now you have a gun through which you can shoot .45 ACP in moon clips or .45C in clips, using speed loaders or loaded singly - .45C for hunting, .45 ACP for everything else.

Here is a 25-13 Mountain Gun that I had TK convert for moon clips...

https://i.postimg.cc/KzdbWBpt/25-13-CS.jpg

A longer tube would probably do you better for hunting and recoil absorption.

Adios,

Pizza Bob

[DueSpada]

Both 45's is always a good idea, but you had to go and make it lovely as well. Don't you dare mess with that barrel.

[john c]

I have one of the Ruger Redhawk .45 Auto / .45 Colt revolvers. It did not work out of the box with .45 Auto and would have a lot of light strikes. Ruger "fixed" it but didn't. I finally had a 'smith friend of mine install a Bowen extended firing pin. He also found a nasty burr that was causing hammer drag. That fixed it and it runs like a top, now. Shooting .45 Auto through it is *very* low recoil. It's a very heavy gun. Oh, and I swapped out the little wood grips for a big rubber Pachy that makes it even easier to shoot. The bad is that point of impact is quite different between heavier Colt loads and the Auto loads, but I don't know how much of a problem that is for you.

If I had it to do over again, I wouldn't, but now that it's working it's a nice gun for what it is.

Is there a distance at which the .45 auto and .45 Colt trajectories converge? In theory, there should be two points at which they converge, though the second one may be a long ways off, and after 20 feet of drop.

Also, what .45 ACP load are you shooting? Perhaps a different load (185 gr +p versus 230 grain standard pressure) might get you closer to converge at a usable distance.

I have an old .45 Colt-only Redhawk. You can find cylinders for them around.

[okie john]

Is there a distance at which the .45 auto and .45 Colt trajectories converge? In theory, there should be two points at which they converge, though the second one may be a long ways off, and after 20 feet of drop.

Also, what .45 ACP load are you shooting? Perhaps a different load (185 gr +p versus 230 grain standard pressure) might get you closer to converge at a usable distance.

I have an old .45 Colt-only Redhawk. You can find cylinders for them around.

The POI in mine differed in windage as well as elevation.


Okie John

[BehindBlueI's]

Is there a distance at which the .45 auto and .45 Colt trajectories converge? In theory, there should be two points at which they converge, though the second one may be a long ways off, and after 20 feet of drop.

Also, what .45 ACP load are you shooting? Perhaps a different load (185 gr +p versus 230 grain standard pressure) might get you closer to converge at a usable distance.

I have an old .45 Colt-only Redhawk. You can find cylinders for them around.


I have no idea when they will converge, but yeah the physics says they will at some point. I'm sure I could figure out a load that would shoot samey-samey but that sort of ruins the point of being able to shoot both for me. I hadn't considered the POI/POA when I bought it and The Wheels of Justification turned on the notion I could carry a hot Colt load in the woods (why I would need to was not considered by The Wheels) and Auto+P in town. I was enamored with the idea of running a 255gr Keith bullet at 1k fps for no reason other then it seemed like it'd be neat. With a 4" barrel it's doable but the result is not my idea of pleasant to shoot. Or fun. Or tolerable with the OEM grips, which are really undersized IMO. It's tolerable with the rubber Pachys, but still not what I'd consider fun.

Then there's the fact the throats are sized for Colt, which as I'm sure you are aware is slightly larger in diameter then Auto. It's not inaccurate with Auto, it's just less accurate. I've got photos somewhere of the group size differences, but can't recall off the top of my head. Maybe .5" difference at 7y? Something like that. Not huge, but something measurable and repeatable.

I've shot very little factory ammunition through it. Mostly when trying to figure out WTF it wasn't working originally. Speer Lawman is my usual factory practice load.

[okie john]

I was enamored with the idea of running a 255gr Keith bullet at 1k fps for no reason other then it seemed like it'd be neat. With a 4" barrel it's doable but the result is not my idea of pleasant to shoot.

Cutting that load by 100 fps makes a world of difference and nothing you'd ever shoot in anger would notice.


Okie John

[Malamute]

Is there a distance at which the .45 auto and .45 Colt trajectories converge? In theory, there should be two points at which they converge, though the second one may be a long ways off, and after 20 feet of drop.

Also, what .45 ACP load are you shooting? Perhaps a different load (185 gr +p versus 230 grain standard pressure) might get you closer to converge at a usable distance.

I have an old .45 Colt-only Redhawk. You can find cylinders for them around.


Regarding 45 ACP cylinders for Blackhawks, it isnt a given that any individual cylinder will fit in any other gun. I found a shop with 3 ACP cylinders, 1 cylinder fit in and functioned in 1 out of 3 guns we tried them in. Just something to keep in mind if anyone was expecting to buy a Blackhawk 45 ACP cylinder and thought they would drop in any gun without issue.

I bought that cylinder, Ive shot it some, but mainly have it for travel, ACP ammo is cheaper and easier to find on the road if I ran low on home grown loads. I really couldnt say exactly how much POI difference there is, I just shot random junk in my yard at 20-25 yards. I dont recall a huge difference in the 4 5/8" barrel Vaquero, I should shoot it on paper and see what it does.

[Hizzie]

I personally find the grip peg arrangement on the SRH to be the least abusive, especially with magnums. Something to consider. The SRH comes in 44 magnum in 7.5” tube. You can get the 454 Casull in a 5” version which would also let you shoot any level of 45 Colt made. The SRH frames are machined for scope mounts.

[Rick R]

IMHO The .45 Colt is the Diesel engine of handgun cartridges. It can chug along on limited fuel doing just fine with 250gr bullets at 800fps or you can add a turbo and push 350gr to 1,200fps.

A good friend of advanced years has arthritis in his wrists and shoots a reduced .45 Colt load from a 7.5” Blackhawk. I don’t remember the load except it’s a stingy amount of Bullseye. We were shooting at a steel target at 420 yards one day across a valley and he wanted to see one of his bullets. We tried digging a couple out of the hardpacked hillside but were thwarted by lack of a shovel and over a foot of penetration!

My current wish list includes a Mountain Gun in .45 Colt to go with my MG in .44 Mag.

[BehindBlueI's]

I personally find the grip peg arrangement on the SRH to be the least abusive, especially with magnums. Something to consider. The SRH comes in 44 magnum in 7.5” tube. You can get the 454 Casull in a 5” version which would also let you shoot any level of 45 Colt made. The SRH frames are machined for scope mounts.

I think the SRH wins on everything but aesthetics, personally.

[JAH 3rd]

I have a Ruger New Model Blackhawk model 0472. It is a 45acp/45LC convertible. As has been said before, it is a heavy revolver. I have just shot 45acp through it so far. Trying to conserve the 3 boxes of LC ammo. I need a more handfilling grip than the factory stocks. It is not a pressing matter since I don't shoot it that much. I like the idea of a convertible revolver since it offers two loads to choose from.......a bit of flexibility when looking for ammo. And throw in the idea of a long gun chambered in 45LC for even more ammo/firearm compatibility.

Whatever you choose, try to hold it before you buy it. We have all been down that road before.......a firearm that checks all the boxes except one........and that one box left unchecked made all the difference. If I had a do-over, I probably would not have bought it. But I am content to keep my Ruger simply for the ammo flexibility.

https://ruger.com/products/newModelBlackhawkConvertible/specSheets/0472.html

[03RN]

I have a Ruger New Model Blackhawk model 0472. It is a 45acp/45LC convertible. As has been said before, it is a heavy revolver. I have just shot 45acp through it so far. Trying to conserve the 3 boxes of LC ammo. I need a more handfilling grip than the factory stocks. It is not a pressing matter since I don't shoot it that much. I like the idea of a convertible revolver since it offers two loads to choose from.......a bit of flexibility when looking for ammo. And throw in the idea of a long gun chambered in 45LC for even more ammo/firearm compatibility.

Whatever you choose, try to hold it before you buy it. We have all been down that road before.......a firearm that checks all the boxes except one........and that one box left unchecked made all the difference. If I had a do-over, I probably would not have bought it. But I am content to keep my Ruger simply for the ammo flexibility.

https://ruger.com/products/newModelBlackhawkConvertible/specSheets/0472.html

You need a good holster for that beaut
61274

[john c]

Regarding 45 ACP cylinders for Blackhawks, it isnt a given that any individual cylinder will fit in any other gun. I found a shop with 3 ACP cylinders, 1 cylinder fit in and functioned in 1 out of 3 guns we tried them in. Just something to keep in mind if anyone was expecting to buy a Blackhawk 45 ACP cylinder and thought they would drop in any gun without issue.

I bought that cylinder, I've shot it some, but mainly have it for travel, ACP ammo is cheaper and easier to find on the road if I ran low on home grown loads. I really couldnt say exactly how much POI difference there is, I just shot random junk in my yard at 20-25 yards. I dont recall a huge difference in the 4 5/8" barrel Vaquero, I should shoot it on paper and see what it does.

Yes, I'm in the process of tracking down .45 ACP cylinders for my set of OM Vaqueros. They're fixed sight, so the idea is to figure out which load is "on" at which distance, and roll with that. I load a lot of .45 ACP "softball" loads (185 gr SWC over 4.0 gr Bullseye) for target/range use, and 255 gr SWC over 9.0 gr Unique.

With Redhawk and S&W swing-out cylinders, the ratchet teeth which determines timing is on the ejector star, not the actual cylinder. The actual cylinders themselves are made to tight tolerances, so that they can generally swap out easier than non-swing out cylinders.

[JAH 3rd]

I believe you said that holster is a Mernickle?

[john c]

The POI in mine differed in windage as well as elevation.


Okie John

That's very interesting. How far off are the POI, and with what loads? I guess the spin rate of the bullet will determine drift, but usually this a factor at rifle distances. If you're still interested in using at a convertible gun, maybe match the speeds of the projectiles. For example, try a 185 gr bullet at 900 fps in .45 ACP and a 255 bullet at 900 fps.

[john c]

I have no idea when they will converge, but yeah the physics says they will at some point. I'm sure I could figure out a load that would shoot samey-samey but that sort of ruins the point of being able to shoot both for me. I hadn't considered the POI/POA when I bought it and The Wheels of Justification turned on the notion I could carry a hot Colt load in the woods (why I would need to was not considered by The Wheels) and Auto+P in town. I was enamored with the idea of running a 255gr Keith bullet at 1k fps for no reason other then it seemed like it'd be neat. With a 4" barrel it's doable but the result is not my idea of pleasant to shoot. Or fun. Or tolerable with the OEM grips, which are really undersized IMO. It's tolerable with the rubber Pachys, but still not what I'd consider fun.

Then there's the fact the throats are sized for Colt, which as I'm sure you are aware is slightly larger in diameter then Auto. It's not inaccurate with Auto, it's just less accurate. I've got photos somewhere of the group size differences, but can't recall off the top of my head. Maybe .5" difference at 7y? Something like that. Not huge, but something measurable and repeatable.

I've shot very little factory ammunition through it. Mostly when trying to figure out WTF it wasn't working originally. Speer Lawman is my usual factory practice load.

My experience with "convertible" guns is that they're generally marketing gimmick. I have a Dan Wesson switch barrel revolver, and it lives with the 8 inch barrel on it. Switching barrels means re-zeroing the gun.

Both my Redhawks are several decades old, and have 7.5 inch barrels. I've looked at the new convertible model, for all the reasons you mention, but haven't pulled the trigger. I figured that if, for example, the .45 acp was "on" at, say 15 yards, and the .45 Colt was "on" at ~35 yards, I could live with that. But I freely admit that I'm a ballistics nerd and would enjoy a project to figure that out, with velocities, BCs, trajectory charts, etc. I tried that with my Dan Wesson with different height front sights so that my basic .357 reload (158 gr fmj over 13.5 gr 2400) would all print the same place. I ran out of plastic front sights, before they started making them again.

[BehindBlueI's]

My experience with "convertible" guns is that they're generally marketing gimmick. I have a Dan Wesson switch barrel revolver, and it lives with the 8 inch barrel on it. Switching barrels means re-zeroing the gun.

Both my Redhawks are several decades old, and have 7.5 inch barrels. I've looked at the new convertible model, for all the reasons you mention, but haven't pulled the trigger. I figured that if, for example, the .45 acp was "on" at, say 15 yards, and the .45 Colt was "on" at ~35 yards, I could live with that. But I freely admit that I'm a ballistics nerd and would enjoy a project to figure that out, with velocities, BCs, trajectory charts, etc. I tried that with my Dan Wesson with different height front sights so that my basic .357 reload (158 gr fmj over 13.5 gr 2400) would all print the same place. I ran out of plastic front sights, before they started making them again.

So the saving grace of this particular model is that the front sight is a quick change one. All it takes to remove the front sight is pushing in a plunger. So you could order different height front sights and just label which is for what load. If you cared enough to do that sort of thing. It's in my "I'll probably die before I get around to this stuff but it's a neat idea" bucket.

[okie john]

That's very interesting. How far off are the POI, and with what loads? I guess the spin rate of the bullet will determine drift, but usually this a factor at rifle distances. If you're still interested in using at a convertible gun, maybe match the speeds of the projectiles. For example, try a 185 gr bullet at 900 fps in .45 ACP and a 255 bullet at 900 fps.

I have no idea. It was years ago. I was focused on hot 45 Colt loads, usually a 325-grain bullet at 1,250 fps. The 45 ACP load was probably 230-grain hardball. In any case, the results were different enough that I stopped the experiment after just a few groups.


Okie John

[john c]

Now you guys are making me want to get one to see if my harebrained theories will work. :D

[03RN]

I believe you said that holster is a Mernickle?


Yes Sir

[oregon45]

That's very interesting. How far off are the POI, and with what loads? I guess the spin rate of the bullet will determine drift, but usually this a factor at rifle distances. If you're still interested in using at a convertible gun, maybe match the speeds of the projectiles. For example, try a 185 gr bullet at 900 fps in .45 ACP and a 255 bullet at 900 fps.

The difference in both vertical and lateral point of impact between heavy .45 Colt loads and .45 ACP loads is caused mainly by recoil. Vertical drop due to velocity loss or differences in exterior ballistics, in my opinion, is not enough to matter within 100 meters. If you can hold hard enough to shoot within the difference in bullet-drop at that distance you are a very proficient shooter.

In my experience with hot-.45 Colt loads (and other, similar, loads in other calibers), they impact higher and to the left of my standard-velocity (750fps / 285gr) / .45 Colt loads. This is, I believe, a function of the heavier recoil driving the barrel higher and driving the gun to the left. I shoot right-handed, and with a two-handed hold the muzzle of the gun often will rise and twist leftward during recoil, until the muzzle is pointed up past my left ear. Given the direction the gun is moving, and the time the bullet is in the barrel, I believe that is the cause of both the vertical and lateral dispersion in my heavy .45 Colt loads.

Convertible revolvers are great, until you try to shoot both calibers in the same day and you find out that you spend all of your time zeroing and re-zeroing the gun. Every convertible revolver I've owned has wound up having a dedicated cylinder for just that reason.

The ideal convertible revolver, for me, would be one with an interchangeable front sight. I would have a tall sight and a short sight, and swap the sights out when swapping the cylinder; I would leave the rear sight alone, and only use it to adjust for differences in light and distance to target.

[oregon45]

Yes Sir

That's a great looking holster. Looking forward to reading about your experiences with it. Does it cant the butt of the grip inward, or is it more of a straight-drop?

[Wise_A]

I'm a giant fan of the S&W 327s (Scandium N-frames). Really strong .357 (max loads of 2400 under a 125-grain JHP) is a little sharp with them, but midrange or stuff on the +P+/Magnum border shoots great. But I handload. Hence, I think you'll be more likely to find ammunition you like in for a 625.

[gato naranja]

Magnum revolvers have been my favorite for a long time, but age and health issues make magnums not a good choice anymore. At least with 4 to 6 inch guns. Still thinking about things like S&W X frame or long barreled Ruger SRH with scope or optic might be tolerable for hunting. Or possibly Ruger Redhawk in 357 though I'd prefer 44 or 45 for hunting.

If you can find a gun heavy enough to keep you from damaging yourself with recoil yet light enough to carry without causing other health issues, I'd go with a .44 Magnum/Special or 45 LC. The .45 convertibles I have used in the past were better in theory than in practice. I thought highly of .45 ACP N-frames for target and home defense for some years, but never considered them correct for medium game given my shooting abilities. Like a 12 gauge shotgun firing 3" shells, the heavy-bullet/hot load big bore handgun is now something I try to avoid using.

Time is no respecter of our recoil tolerance. Nowadays, if I wanted to hunt anything larger than squirrel or rabbit, there would probably be a .357 Mag or 7.62x39 carbine in my hands.

[Lost River]

Magnum revolvers have been my favorite for a long time, but age and health issues make magnums not a good choice anymore. At least with 4 to 6 inch guns. Still thinking about things like S&W X frame or long barreled Ruger SRH with scope or optic might be tolerable for hunting. Or possibly Ruger Redhawk in 357 though I'd prefer 44 or 45 for hunting.

So I'm arguing with myself if it makes sense for me to get 45 ACP/45 LC revolver.

I don't handload much, and that is unlikely to change for multiple reasons, or the 44 special would hold more interest.

I don't plan to get rid of my 357 N frame, will probably add more because 38's in them are still pain free to shoot, but keep thinking a 45 would be nice.

Thoughts?



I will throw in my thoughts as I have a little bit of handgun hunting through the years of both large and small game.




First lets get the X Frame topic out of the way. While on paper they look cool, and the ballistic numbers are great, in practical use for all but a very few people they are very impractical revolvers.

They are cartoonishly large. The .500 shoots ammunition that is prohibitively expensive, unless you are both a handloader and cast your own bullets, as even the projectiles themselves are very expensive. When they first came out, or right before, I want to say late 02-early 03 Smith and Wesson sent a couple to a friend of mine who is a former big name in the competition shooting world, (John Shaw. Early in the action shooting sports games John won almost every national and world title. )and at the time was heavily involved on the special operations training side, primarily NSW.

We took those guns and a couple 50 cal ammo cans and went jackrabbit hunting at night. It was a high cycle year for jacks and targets were plentiful. We got lots of shooting in. It did not take long before the fun was wearing off, as the concussive blast was taking its toll though, as even someone experienced shooting big bore handguns, you can only take so much, and you could feel the concussive blast hitting your head each time you pulled the trigger.

I had another associate who built a personal range and toy (gun) room under one of his buildings. I made the mistake of firing the .500 in the underground range. Plugs and muffs just don't do it. I have had flashbangs that did less damage.

There literally is nothing a .50 caliber does (aside from give a certain type of gun owner bragging rights:rolleyes:) that cannot be accomplished much more precisely and less expensively by a .45 or .44 caliber.

Anyways, aside from the initial ammo being a bit on the hot side and unpleasant to shoot, the gun itself was as unwieldy as it gets. There was nothing practical about it and no good way to pack it, short of using a sling on it. If you picked up a shorter barreled one, say in the 5" range that you could put in a belt holster, you still have a handgun that is larger than needed for all but things like elephants and maybe Cape Buffalo, and honestly, I would use a Ruger Redhawk on both of those before I would take an X Frame.

The .45 X frame is the only cartridge worthy of consideration aka .460. Being a .45 caliber, projectiles abound, and cartridge cases and considerably less expensive (last I checked, which I will admit has been quite a while). The only real positive attribute of the .460 X frame revolver is that aside from being able to fire the .460, it can also fire .454 Casull and .45 Colt, which make it considerable more versatile.

The problem is you still have a platform that is impractical. As mentioned earlier, having experience with X Frames, Ruger Redhawks, Super Redhawks, and N Frame Smiths as well the various single actions, (keeping this for the moment limited to DA guns) I would very much prefer a Ruger Redhawk or Super Redhawk over the X Frames for a heavy duty hunting gun.

In fact, the one gun I have set up exclusively to shoot heavy loads is a 7.5" Redhawk that has been Magna-Ported (I bought it ported). It wears an Ultradot MatchdotII, which many guys who use heavy recoiling handguns consider Ultradots top notch in terms of reliability.

https://i.imgur.com/s6ypQ7l.jpg

It is zeroed for 100 yards, and a 300 grain XTP, pushed by a 23.5 grains of H110.

Normally I shoot cast bullets exclusively in my hunting handguns, but this RH shoots the XTP so accurately I made an exception.


https://i.imgur.com/fqdt7F1.jpg

There are 5 shots in this group, and I think this has to be a fluke, but it still shows the gun is fairly accurate.



https://i.imgur.com/yOTsZ0B.jpg

From the target back to the truck, about 110ish yards.

https://i.imgur.com/tuVxngm.jpg

More to follow..

[Rex G]

I personally find the grip peg arrangement on the SRH to be the least abusive, especially with magnums. Something to consider. The SRH comes in 44 magnum in 7.5” tube. You can get the 454 Casull in a 5” version which would also let you shoot any level of 45 Colt made. The SRH frames are machined for scope mounts.

I’ve been checking a few dealers’ sites for one of those SRH .454 sixguns. No luck, thus far, but I have not started a truly thorough pursuit. (I just finished acquiring components for one final AR15 upper, a longer-range rifle set-up, that sucked most of the financial oxygen from the room.) Not that I would plan to ever shoot any full-Casull-level stuff, having aged-out of wanting to do that, some time ago, but working up to some of the slightly-warmer Colt loads would be a possibility.

Thanks for the data point, on the SRH grip being less-abusive. I also like then SRH hammer, the best, among the three Ruger hammer spur configurations. (I have yet to own a SBH, but briefly had a Montado edition of the Vaquero, which had an SBH-pattern hammer spur.)

[Hizzie]

Proper grip selection gives you a lot of rubber between unforgiving steel and the web of your hand. (GP100 and SRH are the same design mechanically. The SRH is just upsized.)

p/BqdR5pSn6_t


They come with Hogue Tamers with a sorbothane insert are the web of the hand but I think they eat up too much trigger reach for my medium hand. I prefer the Hogue non ginger groove version. Still far more pleasant than any N frame.

p/BnWNvyfnXHW

[Rex G]

I’ve been checking a few dealers’ sites for one of those SRH .454 sixguns. No luck, thus far, but I have not started a truly thorough pursuit. (I just finished acquiring components for one final AR15 upper, a longer-range rifle set-up, that sucked most of the financial oxygen from the room.) Not that I would plan to ever shoot any full-Casull-level stuff, having aged-out of wanting to do that, some time ago, but working up to some of the slightly-warmer Colt loads would be a possibility.

Thanks for the data point, on the SRH grip being less-abusive. I also like then SRH hammer, the best, among the three Ruger hammer spur configurations. (I have yet to own a SBH, but briefly had a Montado edition of the Vaquero, which had an SBH-pattern hammer spur.)

Oops; too late to edit. I typed “SRH,” twice, in the quoted part, when I meant “SBH.” Corrected version, below:

I’ve been checking a few dealers’ sites for one of those SBH .454 sixguns. No luck, thus far, but I have not started a truly thorough pursuit. (I just finished acquiring components for one final AR15 upper, a longer-range rifle set-up, that sucked most of the financial oxygen from the room.) Not that I would plan to ever shoot any full-Casull-level stuff, having aged-out of wanting to do that, some time ago, but working up to some of the slightly-warmer Colt loads would be a possibility.

Thanks for the data point, on the SRH grip being less-abusive. I also like then SBH hammer, the best, among the three Ruger hammer spur configurations. (I have yet to own a SBH, but briefly had a Montado edition of the Vaquero, which had an SBH-pattern hammer spur.)

[Lost River]

So now with the X frame cartoon guns off the table, lets talk about the .44 vs the .45. Honestly this topic has been hashed to death elsewhere.

In short, I have chosen the .44, but neither is a bad option.

The reason for choosing the .44 over the .45 is due to the fact that it is a very rare thing to come across an inaccurate .44 magnum. That cannot be said for the .45 Colt. The manufacturers tend to not be able to stick with one size throat in their .45 cylinder chambers.

Revolver smiths do a fair bit of work reaming cylinders, getting them all to similar dimensions, and many a Ruger Single Action .45 Convertible owner has found that #1 his gun did not shoot that well, and thought it was his own inability, when in fact he had a cylinder that had wide variances in throat dimensions, and #2 especially in the .45 ACP cylinders, their favorite 1911 SWC loads would not fully seat due to the fact that the cylinder was never reamed out to accept a properly loaded SWC load such as this:

https://i.imgur.com/C3SlvNg.jpg

BTW, for the DIY types, the cure is the Manson Chamber reamer:

https://i.imgur.com/eguyRoC.jpg

and in fact there is one floating around Pistol Forum land fixing (hopefully) .45 revolvers right now. :cool:

The previously mentioned comments about two different POA/POIs are spot on with regards to .45 Colt and .45 ACP when you get to switching cylinders and heavy/light loads. I took my own .45 Convertible and relegated it to using it as simply a .45 ACP fun slinger 99% of the time.

When I am not slipping and falling on my butt in the river with it..


https://i.imgur.com/coq0abo.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/caJ7lcu.jpg

What the .45 Colt does have going for it is that for a handloader, you can load everything from very mild loads for small game, to top end loads that can (and have ) take the largest game on the planet. Of course the same can be said for the .44 magnum. For a NON handloader though, options are very limited, and the .45 Colt is not an option I would suggest. Yes you can get specialty loads from boutique shops and some companies, but the menu selection is considerably narrower as compared to the .44 magnum.

The .45 Colt is an outstanding cartridge and very comfortable to shoot, a well as when it is properly set up, it can be as accurate as anything else out there. It has a lot going for it. However for a person buying off the shelf ammo, it would not be my first choice.

The .44 magnum.

It is uncommon to find one that does not shoot very well. Ruger, Colt and Smith and Wesson all seem to produce very consistent .44 magnums, and in shooting, handloading, working on them for the last 25+ years it has been a very rare occasion that I have found one that was a poor performer. They tend to shoot well with handloads or factory ammo. There is a massive selection of factory .44 magnum ammo available in everything from your typical 180 grain JHPs to 300+ grain solids or HPs. In the middle you have the more common and much more practical 240/250 grain ammo that will solve 99% of a normal persons hunting needs with tolerable/reasonable, and generally is found at a reasonable price.

This ammo, aside from being much more user friendly is also easy on the guns. You are not likely to ever wear one out. I have shot literally thousands upon thousands of rounds through N frame .44s and I have yet to totally wear one out. The Scandium guns are a different story, but they are not one I would even consider for a hunting handgun. PF member paul105 can give a thorough rundown of everything you want to know about a Scandium 329 BTW.

I tend to use my Model 29s for 240/250 grain loads and my Rugers for 300 grain heavy loads. However, when I was younger (and only owned one M29)I pounded a considerable number of 300 grain/H110 loads through my original M29-2, a gun that has more than 10K rounds through it, and it is still in service to this day.

https://i.imgur.com/KQNwm2d.jpg


Today, I primarily use a 5"M29 with an RDO with a nice 240/250 hardcast SWC and 10 grains Unique. I have yet to see anything walk away from getting hit with it.

50 yard accuracy is good, but H110 provides better accuracy I have found.

https://i.imgur.com/sy9Abac.jpg

Single action VS double action.

This is purely personal.

I have used and own both. On the single action side I have used various frames including the Bisley. The short version is that I have found that I shoot best with a double action frame. They simply fit my hand better. While I liked the feel of the Bisleys, I never shot them as well as a DA S&W. Also in the field, I tend to actually shoot double action, no matter the distance.

That has to do with being consistent in how you hold a gun when firing it and controlling recoil. Each person has to find out through experimentation what works best for them. I have watched a lot of people shoot big bores and most do OK close up, 25 yards and in, but when the ranges extend, you can really see the inconsistencies. That is a kind of a different rabbit trail though.

Experiment with frames and see what works best for you, at say 50 or 100 yards. Your results at extended ranges will give a clear indication of what is likely a better choice for you closer in. If that is a Blackhawk/Super BH frame or a Redhawk, or whatever, roll with it. If you have the ability, take some different grips with you and swap them out. Grips change a guns personality considerably. what a gun feels like just holding it often is vastly different than how it feels during firing.

I never thought much of the original Ruger Redhawk grips. I was initially dismissive of them like 99% of people. That is until I had an older (very experienced) handgun hunter admonish me to stop being a dumb ass and actually shoot the gun with them before I tried any other grips. As it ended up, he was right as usual. While they were nothing to look at visually, they were a very well thought out design, filling the palm in the right spot, and actually a rather good design. The majority of the revolvers I own have aftermarket grips, except my 2 Redhawks.

https://i.imgur.com/iFR9HBQ.jpg

A little about the .357. While the .357 ammo can generally be found for less money, and .38 special ammo is without question the king of inexpensive centerfire revolver ammunition, I would not choose a .357 as a primary hunting revolver unless I was an exceptionally well accomplished handgun hunter. Plus, to be honest there is something about the sharp crack about the top end .357 loads that I find rather objectionable, as compared to a mid range .44 or .45.

Frankly a .44 mag/.45 Colt 240/250 grain SWC at 1100 or even up to 300 grain projectile at a modest 1000 FPS is going to drop anything you are likely to ever come across. Big lead slugs at moderate velocities are simply big medicine. I have one or two pictures that confirm this. They are easy to shoot and drop animals large and small.

A .44 magnum also (as others have mentioned) to chamber .44 Special, which in factory fodder is often very mild, which makes for great small game hunting opportunities, and general plinking.

Small game hunting wit your handgun with certainly sharpen your skills. If you can hit small targets afield, then the big ones seem pretty easy.

Plus you can play games like "prairie dog Olympics". This is where you shoot low into a mound and launch the rodent into the air, instantly killing it, but not blowing it to pieces..

https://i.imgur.com/pcjxnnQ.jpg

.44 Mag ground squirrel safaris deep into the Pahsimeroi valley (of Elmer Keith fame) with a 5" Model 29 (naturally) are great fun and practice as well.

https://i.imgur.com/fnE2F6V.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/DGlVTg3.jpg

Its not much of a place to look at, but I understand why Elmer liked it for hunting the mighty squirrels and Jackrabbits (and antelope, and elk, and...)

https://i.imgur.com/yJiVIi3.jpg


Anyways,

I guess that ended up being a much longer post than anticipated.

Hopefully it helped. TLDR, Chose a frame that fits you first. Then choose a cartridge. Personally, I find the .44 works for all I have found on this continent.


CHEERS!

[Lost River]

Proper grip selection gives you a lot of rubber between unforgiving steel and the web of your hand. (GP100 and SRH are the same design mechanically. The SRH is just upsized.)

p/BqdR5pSn6_t


They come with Hogue Tamers with a sorbothane insert are the web of the hand but I think they eat up too much trigger reach for my medium hand. I prefer the Hogue non ginger groove version. Still far more pleasant than any N frame.

p/BnWNvyfnXHW


I really like that GP100. :cool:

A GP100 in .44 special for a handloader would be a pretty sweet deer hunting/medium game gun.

[Rex G]

Proper grip selection gives you a lot of rubber between unforgiving steel and the web of your hand. (GP100 and SRH are the same design mechanically. The SRH is just upsized.)

p/BqdR5pSn6_t


They come with Hogue Tamers with a sorbothane insert are the web of the hand but I think they eat up too much trigger reach for my medium hand. I prefer the Hogue non ginger groove version. Still far more pleasant than any N frame.

p/BnWNvyfnXHW

True. In DA revolvers, I already moved from N-Frames to the Super Redhawk, with an SRH Alaskan. In my first post, this morning, above, I was insufficiently-caffeinated, and typed that I had been searching on-line for an SRH, when I meant that I had been searching on-line for an SBH.

I doubt that I will ever shoot Casull-level ammo through my SRH Alaskan. I installed an original-type GP100 grip, which is my favorite DA handgun grip of all time. Thus far, the mild stuff is plenty, but if we ever get around to planning travels among XL-sized mammals, I will work my way slowly upward through some of the warmer stuff. Left-handed. I wrecked my right wrist by shooting big-bore Magnums, through imperfectly-held N-Frames, in the Eighties, with my K/L-sized hands. Yes, I was dumb enough to carry an S&W 629 as a duty handgun, during my rookie year, and believed in training with Magnums, if I was carrying Magnums. My left hand was largely spared, because I mostly shot my “back-up” Model 60 lefty, in order to be “street-relevant.”

I backed-off to 9mm, in oprder to let my right hand heal, as soon as I could carry an autoloader, when I reached one year of sworn service. Then, after about half a year, I was back to big-bore Magnums, but .41 Mag, in a Model 58. I understood fit, by then; the narrow trigger was dressed at the front and edges, and I used smaller grips, but my grip was still somewhat compromised. No such thing as .41 Special, and I still believed in training. Finally transitioning to single-stack .45 autos, for duty, and the GP100, for general utility, in 1990, was a fortuitous move, which I did not fully appreciate until much later. Thankfully, I am actually a natural left-hander, so did not wreck my more-skilled hand for detail-oriented tasks. (I throw right-handed, so drawing an L- or N-Frame, from a low-slung duty rig felt natural, and it is easier to reach to 0300, than 0900, when in the driver’s seat of most vehicles, so, I chose 0300 for “primary.”)

[gato naranja]

It wears an Ultradot MatchdotII, which many guys who use heavy recoiling handguns consider Ultradots top notch in terms of reliability.

We are still using an UltraDot that was bought about fifteen years ago, while all the small, open-type reflexes - and not "cheap" ones, either - have crapped out and needed replacement in that same timeframe. The long-range and/or small-group lads seem to keep using Ultradots, but they are definitely not the current hip accessory.

They are sizeable, but on a big pistol not disproportionately so. I tend to wear a poker face most of the time these days, but the younger me would have rolled his eyes when people who complain about recoil and thus put gi-normous grips, compensators, etc on a handgun... suddenly count fractions of ounces and become aesthetic minimalists when it comes to pistol optics.

Humans are weird.

[03RN]

I guess that ended up being a much longer post than anticipated.


No one is complaining;)

[Lost River]

A number of years back a friend I had met online years back who is a truly GIFTED shooter came out to Idaho to visit. He is a retired LEO and shoots a lot to say the least. He stayed for a couple months visiting various friends he had in the area. He ended up staying at the cabin for a while. We went onto the Pahsimeroi as well as a dried up reservoir and did some long range handgunning. That old M29-2 was used along with a tall plastic Folgers can that I discovered will contain 550 rounds of .44 mag ammo. I did my best to turn ammo into brass. :cool:

https://i.imgur.com/mu7XTp2.jpg



Targets were set out to the mid 500s I want to say. I can't recall the exact ranges. We would spot for each other when the bullets would strike the dry lake bed and walk our rounds in. Bob, is a gentleman you definitely don't want shooting at you! He shoots 41 magnums, usually an N Frame .41, though he'd brought out a custom Freedom Arms with a tall front sight blade. Truly amazingly accurate gun.

https://i.imgur.com/GUYmIZA.jpg

And a couple pics from Horse Heaven Pass on the Pahsimeroi.

https://i.imgur.com/78cUaEE.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/LgOq9mr.jpg

And a pic shooting from the porch at a steel plate about 110 yards away:

https://i.imgur.com/lwaDTVI.jpg

Fun times.



Not exactly a fine restaurant, but we had a decent lunch of BBQ'd elk backstraps, and salad after a good morning session of long range lead slinging.Bob didn't mind the rough cabin living.

https://i.imgur.com/nbl86j9.jpg



Anyways,

The .44 is certainly a good choice for such things, and will get you practiced up for whatever you choose to hunt.

[Crazy Dane]

I really like that GP100. :cool:

A GP100 in .44 special for a handloader would be a pretty sweet deer hunting/medium game gun.

I can confirm this. The .44 Special is a reloaders crack addiction.

70 yards with a 255 Keith bullet at 1050fps. She never twitched.

https://i.ibb.co/XWNfg1G/4-F4641-A4-8949-4-F6-F-96-D7-4883-F6-A37-BD4.jpg (https://ibb.co/51tXymJ)

[revchuck38]

I backed-off to 9mm, in oprder to let my right hand heal, as soon as I could carry an autoloader, when I reached one year of sworn service. Then, after about half a year, I was back to big-bore Magnums, but .41 Mag, in a Model 58. I understood fit, by then; the narrow trigger was dressed at the front and edges, and I used smaller grips, but my grip was still somewhat compromised. No such thing as .41 Special, and I still believed in training.

The ballistics of the .41 Magnum "Police" load were good, but the bullets Winchester and Remington used were lousy - they leaded quickly and gave poor accuracy. My guess is that had the ammo been of better quality, the .41 Mag would've been more popular among LEOs of the period.

[Rex G]

The ballistics of the .41 Magnum "Police" load were good, but the bullets Winchester and Remington used were lousy - they leaded quickly and gave poor accuracy. My guess is that had the ammo been of better quality, the .41 Mag would've been more popular among LEOs of the period.

True, regarding the factory lead bullets. I used 175-grain Winchester Silvertips, for street duty. IIRC, much of my .41 training ammo came from a batch I bought from local commercial reloader in Pasadena, Texas. A substantial amount of my practice, at least at first, was with an S&W 25-2, .45 ACP, which later shifted to an S&W 17-4 .22 LR sixgun. A young street cop did not have much cash for training ammo, in those days, especially as the recession meant few opportunities to work lucrative overtime details, or to find security gigs.

The Model 58 was nicely slimmer, overall, due to less metal, in the top strap. That, combined with no shroud for the ejector rod, resulted in a nicely-light-weight weapon. The narrow factory trigger meant that I could get more finger on the trigger, plus, the trigger on my sample had been modified on the face, to remove the finger grooves, and rounded on the leading edges, which further improved the fit for my really-too-short-for-N-Frame trigger fingers.

The slimness meant that it was easy to IWB-carry the 58 in an Eagle Industries nylon generic-fit IWB revolver holster. (Yes, it would collapse, when the weapon was drawn, but otherwise, an EXCELLENT holster.) I saw my Model 60 J-snub as a back-up weapon for my at-work hours, so carried the 58 virtually all the time, for about four years. In 1990, I transitioned to a Stainless Commander, when I finally found one that was reliable. (IIRC, it took three tries.) Sadly, after about a year, and being flawless for several thousand rounds, the Stainless Commander became finicky. Sigh. The Model 58 resumed its duties, until I could buy and vet a SIG P220.

After I started using the P220 as my 24/7/365 duty/carry gun, the 58 started its honorable retirement. In fast DA, the cylinder does always fully lock into place, before the hammer wants to fall. It works OK single action, if I ever want to fire it again.

The Eighties, in Houston, at night, on the streets, were times of high adventure. That was what had attracted me to try policin’ in Houston, rather than go into the military. The Nineties were so very different. (Notably, however, my only line-of-duty shooting happened in 1993, with my GP100.)

The P220 was 100% reliable, except for one box of ammo that would not work in anything else, either. The heel-clip mag release, however, tended to snag on things, partially releasing the mag, while the weapon was in its holster, and after the third or fourth time of that happening, I started my GP100/K-Frame .357 Mag era, 1993-1997.

[Rex G]

With all of the cylinder and barrel throat inconsistencies, in the various makers’ .45 Colt revolvers, would there be any merit in buying a locally-available Freedom Arms 83 Field Grade? I know that not all .45 Colt heavy-bullet loads with fit into a Freedom Arms .454 chamber, but standard-weight bullets should fit OK, and Freedom Arms should have no problem with chamber throat dimensions not matching forcing cone dimensions. I will not be launching exotic-weight bullets; I simply want long-range accuracy, stainless steel, and adjustable sights, in a package that will not require a ‘smith to be correcting anything.

Thanks, for any thoughts/replies.

[oregon45]

With all of the cylinder and barrel throat inconsistencies, in the various makers’ .45 Colt revolvers, would there be any merit in buying a locally-available Freedom Arms 83 Field Grade? I know that not all .45 Colt heavy-bullet loads with fit into a Freedom Arms .454 chamber, but standard-weight bullets should fit OK, and Freedom Arms should have no problem with chamber throat dimensions not matching forcing cone dimensions. I will not be launching exotic-weight bullets; I simply want long-range accuracy, stainless steel, and adjustable sights, in a package that will not require a ‘smith to be correcting anything.

Thanks, for any thoughts/replies.

That sounds like an excellent description of a Freedom Arms M83 in .454. No drawbacks at all to using one of those exclusively with .45 Colt.

[JHC]

True, regarding the factory lead bullets. I used 175-grain Winchester Silvertips, for street duty. IIRC, much of my .41 training ammo came from a batch I bought from local commercial reloader in Pasadena, Texas. A substantial amount of my practice, at least at first, was with an S&W 25-2, .45 ACP, which later shifted to an S&W 17-4 .22 LR sixgun. A young street cop did not have much cash for training ammo, in those days, especially as the recession meant few opportunities to work lucrative overtime details, or to find security gigs.

The Model 58 was nicely slimmer, overall, due to less metal, in the top strap. That, combined with no shroud for the ejector rod, resulted in a nicely-light-weight weapon. The narrow factory trigger meant that I could get more finger on the trigger, plus, the trigger on my sample had been modified on the face, to remove the finger grooves, and rounded on the leading edges, which further improved the fit for my really-too-short-for-N-Frame trigger fingers.

The slimness meant that it was easy to IWB-carry the 58 in an Eagle Industries nylon generic-fit IWB revolver holster. (Yes, it would collapse, when the weapon was drawn, but otherwise, an EXCELLENT holster.) I saw my Model 60 J-snub as a back-up weapon for my at-work hours, so carried the 58 virtually all the time, for about four years. In 1990, I transitioned to a Stainless Commander, when I finally found one that was reliable. (IIRC, it took three tries.) Sadly, after about a year, and being flawless for several thousand rounds, the Stainless Commander became finicky. Sigh. The Model 58 resumed its duties, until I could buy and vet a SIG P220.

After I started using the P220 as my 24/7/365 duty/carry gun, the 58 started its honorable retirement. In fast DA, the cylinder does always fully lock into place, before the hammer wants to fall. It works OK single action, if I ever want to fire it again.

The Eighties, in Houston, at night, on the streets, were times of high adventure. That was what had attracted me to try policin’ in Houston, rather than go into the military. The Nineties were so very different. (Notably, however, my only line-of-duty shooting happened in 1993, with my GP100.)

The P220 was 100% reliable, except for one box of ammo that would not work in anything else, either. The heel-clip mag release, however, tended to snag on things, partially releasing the mag, while the weapon was in its holster, and after the third or fourth time of that happening, I started my GP100/K-Frame .357 Mag era, 1993-1997.

i carried a Model 58 IWB and AIWB a fair bit in the first half of the 80's. Had two of them. Shot some local IPSC matches with one at the Puyallup indoor range. I stood out like a sore them with that. lol

They were available pretty reasonably on the used market in Tacoma WA circa early '80's. Really screwed up parting with them.

[OlongJohnson]

blah, blah, blah, cool revolver pics, blah, blah, blah

https://i.imgur.com/iFR9HBQ.jpg

Dangit! Now you have me geeking out on Redhawks.

[Rex G]

That sounds like an excellent description of a Freedom Arms M83 in .454. No drawbacks at all to using one of those exclusively with .45 Colt.

Thanks!

[jandbj]

Thanks!

Have freedom arms make you a .45 Colt (& maybe a .45 ACP) cylinder too.

And post pics please!

[Rex G]

Have freedom arms make you a .45 Colt (& maybe a .45 ACP) cylinder too.

And post pics please!

Well, let’s not get too optimistic, just yet. Its price is probably still too high, and, I have been putting recent money into AR15 stuff, and ammo.

Here’s a link, in case any of y’all want to save me from myself.

https://www.collectorsfirearms.com/freedom-arms-field-grade-454-cas-pr45463/

[RAM Engineer]

I always wished they would put the SRH grip frame on the regular Redhawk, for those of us who don't want/need the massive frame/barrel extension of the SRH.

[Bigghoss]

I always wished they would put the SRH grip frame on the regular Redhawk, for those of us who don't want/need the massive frame/barrel extension of the SRH.

They really need to replace the Redhawk with something that looks like a Redhawk but has the guts and grip frame of the GP100/SRH. A revolver like that in .357, .44mag, and .45ACP/Colt would all be very high on my list of stuff to get. Or at the very friggen least, offer all those options in the SRH with a 4" barrel. Actually, give me a 4 or 5" barrel in .44 mag and I'll take an 8-shot .357 and the .45ACP in the Alaskan.

[RAM Engineer]

They really need to replace the Redhawk with something that looks like a Redhawk but has the guts and grip frame of the GP100/SRH.

I like this idea.

Redhawk Mk II (obvious choice)
Redhawk 2020 (too soon?)
Redhawk 200 (like the "100" in GP-100?)

[Rex G]

They really need to replace the Redhawk with something that looks like a Redhawk but has the guts and grip frame of the GP100/SRH. A revolver like that in .357, .44mag, and .45ACP/Colt would all be very high on my list of stuff to get. Or at the very friggen least, offer all those options in the SRH with a 4" barrel. Actually, give me a 4 or 5" barrel in .44 mag and I'll take an 8-shot .357 and the .45ACP in the Alaskan.

The Super GP100 is a start. I have not put calipers to metal, but the frame/grip part of my Super GP100 surely looks and feels like my SRH Alaskan.

[Rex G]

I like this idea.

Redhawk Mk II (obvious choice)
Redhawk 2020 (too soon?)
Redhawk 200 (like the "100" in GP-100?)

Take a look at the Super GP100. Folks are ignoring the Super GP100, perhaps because of the unsightly diagonal “gills” along the barrel. IIRC, Ruger indicated the slots were to reduce weight and/or improve balance. I see them as traction grooves, to help me maintain control of the weapon in a FUT.

Yes, a snub provides less for an opponent to grab, but, in the case of a longer-barreled weapon, if I can keep my hands on the grip and on the distal end of the barrel, I will maintain the advantage of leverage. So, if a barrel is going to be long, it might as well have traction grooves. :)

[ldunnmobile]

I keep talking myself in and out of a 2.75” Model 69 Combat 44

[Dov]

The .45 X frame is the only cartridge worthy of consideration aka .460. Being a .45 caliber, projectiles abound, and cartridge cases and considerably less expensive (last I checked, which I will admit has been quite a while). The only real positive attribute of the .460 X frame revolver is that aside from being able to fire the .460, it can also fire .454 Casull and .45 Colt, which make it considerable more versatile.

The problem is you still have a platform that is impractical. As mentioned earlier, having experience with X Frames, Ruger Redhawks, Super Redhawks, and N Frame Smiths as well the various single actions, (keeping this for the moment limited to DA guns) I would very much prefer a Ruger Redhawk or Super Redhawk over the X Frames for a heavy duty hunting gun.



I should have specified with the X frame I was only thinking of the 460, mainly as a very light kicking gun with 454 or Ruger Level 45 LC loads for hunting. Most likely with Leupold on it. It's not a belt gun IMO, its more of a "pocket rifle" hunting handgun roughly equivalent to a TC Contender but much milder recoil, I would probably use ether a sling or hunting type shoulder/bandoleer holster for it.

For a hunting or field belt gun I have a Glock 29SF or could use the one of my 4" N frames with hardcast 38 specials or 44 specials.

Though if I did get a 460 caliber X frame I would probably want to get belt friendly revolver in 45 ACP/45 LC like a S&W N frame, Ruger DA, or SA revolver to complement it. Though that is certainly a want not a need, the G29 would compliment X frame well functionally if not aesthetically.

[OlongJohnson]

Folks are ignoring the Super GP100, perhaps because of the unsightly diagonal “gills” along the barrel.

I would be very interested in one if it didn't make me want to put my own eye out. They should also start building it in calibers that start with 4.

[Lost River]

I should have specified with the X frame I was only thinking of the 460, mainly as a very light kicking gun with 454 or Ruger Level 45 LC loads for hunting. Most likely with Leupold on it. It's not a belt gun IMO, its more of a "pocket rifle" hunting handgun roughly equivalent to a TC Contender but much milder recoil, I would probably use ether a sling or hunting type shoulder/bandoleer holster for it.

For a hunting or field belt gun I have a Glock 29SF or could use the one of my 4" N frames with hardcast 38 specials or 44 specials.

Though if I did get a 460 caliber X frame I would probably want to get belt friendly revolver in 45 ACP/45 LC like a S&W N frame, Ruger DA, or SA revolver to complement it. Though that is certainly a want not a need, the G29 would compliment X frame well functionally if not aesthetically.

What species are you hunting?

Is defense from large animals an issue, such as stuff you find in the northern Rockies?

[Rex G]

I would be very interested in one if it didn't make me want to put my own eye out.

I had similar feelings about the original GP100, when it was introduced, about 1985*. Not only was “the billboard” on the barrel, but the model name engraving seemed so crude. Not until about 1990 did I decide to buy my first GP100, after finally discovering that the grip was absolutely, custom-level perfect for my hands. (For any young-‘uns reading this, I am talking about the original Ruger GP100 grip, well before those Hogue grips were offered on many GP100 models.) Shooting the GP100 was the confirmation; all was right with the world. All of a sudden, that ugly barrel looked beautiful.

As for being able to grasp a barrel, to stop a gun grab, I was able to stop Paul Gomez from taking-away a G17-sized Sim Glock, at ECQC, in 2005 or 2006. I reckon that the rail slots helped provide traction, to assist my gripping with my support hand, resisting what Paul was doing, overcoming the leverage he was applying, at the upper rear and mid-parts of the slide and frame. (Interestingly, my prior training, that had “kicked-in,” at that moment, was good ol’ US Red Cross Advanced Lifesaving, a.k.a. Water Safety Instructor/Lifeguard training. The principles of leverage are universal, and being underwater, with “x” amount of air in one’s lungs, is a true form of stress inoculation training.)

*1985 is when I was wrecking my right thumb, hand, and wrist with an imperfectly-held S&W Model 629, .44 Magnum, as my index finger is not quite long enough to reach an N-Frame trigger, for DA shooting. I backed-down to a Model 58 .41 Mag, by the end of 1985, but that is still an N-Frame, and I kept up the punishment until about 1990, or early 1991. I can only wonder how much healthier my right hand, thumb, and wrist might be, today, had I embraced the GP100 sooner.

[Stephanie B]

I keep talking myself in and out of a 2.75” Model 69 Combat 44

Dooooo eeeeettttt!

[Inkwell 41]

I would be very interested in one if it didn't make me want to put my own eye out. They should also start building it in calibers that start with 4.

This! With options for 4, 5 and 6 inch barrels.

[Flashman]

I think a Super GP in 44 or 45 with a 4 inch partial lug barrel would be as good as it gets. Bowen has been making conversions for some time.

[Dov]

What species are you hunting?

Is defense from large animals an issue, such as stuff you find in the northern Rockies?

Sorry haven't been logged in to the forum for some time, just saw this.

More just looking for hunting handguns that I can use with current physical limitations, handgun hunting has always appealed to me far more than hunting with long gun.

I live in the Midwest so not concerned much with wild animal defense, though based on what's happened to friends and family far more concerned about domestic animals, both grandfather and friend of mine where attacked by bulls.

Mother in Law of one of my sisters was killed by a bull.

My gf also has had horses most of her life the so the need to humanely deal with badly wounded horse is also something try to be prepared for, though hope never have to do that.

[Lost River]

Sorry haven't been logged in to the forum for some time, just saw this.

More just looking for hunting handguns that I can use with current physical limitations, handgun hunting has always appealed to me far more than hunting with long gun.

I live in the Midwest so not concerned much with wild animal defense, though based on what's happened to friends and family far more concerned about domestic animals, both grandfather and friend of mine where attacked by bulls.

Mother in Law of one of my sisters was killed by a bull.

My gf also has had horses most of her life the so the need to humanely deal with badly wounded horse is also something try to be prepared for, though hope never have to do that.


A 5" N frame in .44 Mag/.45 Colt with a 240/250 grain bullet at 1K would likely handle all you need. Easy to shoot, recoil is tolerable, revolver is packable and won't wear you down.


I run a 270 grain Keith style wide meplat SWC in my .45 Colt at 900 FPS in my Ruger .45 Flattop and it is another good choice is you wanted a single action.

I just spent a few days south of Livingston MT, this last weekend, and it was one of the guns I had with me.

https://i.imgur.com/x6KvbHl.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/AJkUq1p.jpg

[Oldherkpilot]

I went with a Ruger Blackhawk .44 Special and I love it. With a single action revolver you don't go through that many rounds...

You're just not trying! Buckle down, you can do this!😁

[Dov]

A 5" N frame in .44 Mag/.45 Colt with a 240/250 grain bullet at 1K would likely handle all you need. Easy to shoot, recoil is tolerable, revolver is packable and won't wear you down.


I run a 270 grain Keith style wide meplat SWC in my .45 Colt at 900 FPS in my Ruger .45 Flattop and it is another good choice is you wanted a single action.

I just spent a few days south of Livingston MT, this last weekend, and it was one of the guns I had with me.

https://i.imgur.com/x6KvbHl.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/AJkUq1p.jpg

Yeah that's one of the things I've been thinking about trying, think Linebaugh has written a little about how effective the ~250 grain hardcast bullets at ~900 fps are for lower 48 hunting but cant recall any details on that.

Just don't have any experience or good references/notes on details of those loads, unlike the 300-325 grain hardcast bullets at 1200-1400 fps.

[jandbj]

Yeah that's one of the things I've been thinking about trying, think Linebaugh has written a little about how effective the ~250 grain hardcast bullets at ~900 fps are for lower 48 hunting but cant recall any details on that.

Just don't have any experience or good references/notes on details of those loads, unlike the 300-325 grain hardcast bullets at 1200-1400 fps.

http://www.sixguns.com/tests/tt45lc.htm

[jtcarm]

If one was going to content himself with shooting non-Ruger .45 Colt loads, is a flat top Blackhawk any real advantage for durability over a Model 25?

Is a non-Ruger .45 Colt load ballistically advantageous over a .45 Auto +P Gold Dot or HST? I'd have to convince myself there was some reason to go this way in addition to the P220, USP and GP100 I already have. Funsies and aesthetics might suffice.

A big bore revolver can handle bullets with wide meplats that cut a big hole without relying on expansion.

A .44/45 WFN at 900 FPS is a great alternative to magnums. The problem for the OP is these are pretty much of a handloading proposition.

I find recoil from an SA much more agreeable than a DA of similar size since web of the shooting isn’t taking the brunt of the force.

[OlongJohnson]

Since I wrote that, I've owned a couple of Blackhawks, decided they weren't my thing, and sent them on down the road.

[JTMcC]

Yeah that's one of the things I've been thinking about trying, think Linebaugh has written a little about how effective the ~250 grain hardcast bullets at ~900 fps are for lower 48 hunting but cant recall any details on that.

Just don't have any experience or good references/notes on details of those loads, unlike the 300-325 grain hardcast bullets at 1200-1400 fps.

Here is a quote from John Linebaugh on 900 fps 45 Colt effectiveness:

"I have personally taken about 10 antelope and 1 mule deer with a .45 Colt. My boys have taken around 6 antelope and 5 mule deer with their .45 Colts. They use a 4 3/4" Colt SA and the handload is a 260 Keith cast at 900 fps. This load will shoot lengthwise of antelope and mule deer at 100 yards. In my estimation it kills as well as the .270, 30-06 class rifles if the shots are placed properly. If I were hunting heavier game I'd step up the velocity to 1200 fps and in extreme circumstances, (elk, hogs, bear) go to the 310 gr cast slug. This load, 310 at 1200 will go through elk like so much air. These loads can be managed by anyone who is serious about handgunning big game. The .45 gives them a minimum of recoil and blast. I think the .45 Colt has a lot to do with this as it gives them big bore power without big bore recoil and blast".

End quote, My limited experience is the same, I've seen little if any visible difference in killing speed between: A) big bore, moderate velocity, large meplat bullets from handguns... and B) typical mule deer type rifles used on the same game, assuming the range is within normal handgun range.
Some (not many) drop in their tracks, some stagger a bit, wobble a ways and drop, some run 100 yards like you plumb flat missed, then drop dead.

People will argue that point till the cows come home but if you quiz them, they've not witnessed big critters put on the ground with appropriate handgun bullets. They are speaking from what they've read.

[paul105]

I keep talking myself in and out of a 2.75” Model 69 Combat 44

Neat little revolvers, my current favorite handgun. Shoot it several times a week and carry it in the back pocket of my carharts when woods bumming.

Shown with hastily modified worn out Hogue Tamers (removed finger groves and rounded butt).

https://photos.imageevent.com/paul105/hobby/M69%202.75%20%20%202%20%20%20%20cropped%20%20thumb nail_IMG_4597.jpg

FWIW,

Paul