.45 acp (or any rimless round) in moon clips are a potential point of failure due to bent clips. They also often require heavier trigger pulls to get reliable ignition.Originally Posted by overton
Expansion is a pretty distant third in Terminal ballistics behind shot placement and adequate penetration.
.
It's simply it boils down to speed loaders vs moonclips.
Moonclips work fine in a competition setting, but in a defensive setting they're more fragile than a good speed loader and just as bulky to carry. You can "remedy" this by using .45 Auto Rim, but finding factory loaded defensive ammo in .45 Auto Rim is near impossible.
As for left behind, not really. The .45LC and .45ACP use the same bullet diameter (.451-.452") - but .45LC can load a heavier bullet and at higher velocities as well.
You can get expansion of a .45 from these "short barrels", particularly lighter bullets. Heavier 230s and 250s might be marginal but anything in the 185-200 grain range is almost certainly going to expand. And it's sort of trite but...45s don't shrink...
I don’t think anyone is suggesting these as modern defensive tools. They’re collector pieces that are from a different era and examples of perhaps a lost art, while remaining functional.
It’s kind of like a ‘60s muscle car. A 2022 V6 Camry will outclass it in every respect except cool. No one is suggesting you get a 66 mustang fastback as a daily driver. But you should get one to drive around on leisurely summer days.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've had quicker/more reliable results on game with .45 colt pushing heavy flat bullets and warmish velocities vs the best modern 9mm jhp.
I carried a .4" redhawk for a year and someday I'd like a mountain gun that I would plan on carrying a lot.
I still tend towards larger calibers for general use. When one shoots enough animals with various things, you figure out there is something to larger calibers vs smaller, and it starts to become more of a thing as animals get larger. To get the better performance from smaller, it requires more velocity, which translates to more muzzle blast, and in shorter barrels, the 357 can only be described as intense. Its the price you pay for the performance upgrade. If youre satisfied with 38 spl level performance in compact-ish to service/belt size revolvers, youre good to go, though Ive seen dramatic differences in what happens between 38s and 357 mags in animals, and reports of people that have used them and seen their use in LE work confirm the results in that use. I prefer the 357 given the choice in the smaller calibers and where practical, like above pocket carry size. You can get pretty good results on animals with 44s and 45s with large flat point bullets and not so intense muzzle blast, and thats a part of the equation of larger caliber revolvers for defensive or field use. The trade-off is the guns are a bit thicker and larger.
I suppose that all translates to being out of date, as the world prefers lightweight automatic pistols for most uses. I cant argue the utility, just dont really like them that much, nor do i find many of the general complaints against revolvers to be as much of an issue as often stated or real problem in my use. My judgement may be clouded by liking what I like, rather than trying to have the most up to date. My vehicles tend to be 10-15 or more years old, motorcycles 35 to 70-some years old, mostly use rifles that are bolt or lever action, and live in a log cabin, because I like it. YMMV of course, but this stuff all works pretty well for me.
And yes, id love to have a short barrel N frame in 44 or 45 Colt for general carry. When they were available and priced like normal guns, legal concealed carry wasnt a thing anywhere I lived, so never paid much attention to them. A 3" 24 or 45 Colt would be just dandy now.
“Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
.45s don't need to expand, or super high velocity to kill. They have been putting both large animals and people into the dirt for over a century, without the need for any expansion.
We have been wrapped up in the whole 9mm is now equal to everything else silliness for a good little bit now and the more it gets read and repeated, the more it is believed. Funny, you don't see the experienced handgun hunters deliberately trading in their .45 Colt and .44 Magnums for 9x19s..
Back to the Jovino,
With a proper handload, it is just as effective today at dropping whatever needs dropped as it has ever been. Heavy slugs are VERY hard to stop and penetrate deep.
Here is a pic of a friend who killed this cow elk a few years back using an old M1917 .45 ACP revolver and .45 Auto Rim brass. The bullets were 246.5 grains with a velocity of 900 FPS. Obviously, it worked.
John Linebaugh, who is well known in the handgun building community for making hunting guns has this to say:
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.
That is not particularly heavy load and one that is easily achievable in a shorter barrel. I run a similar load in my 4& 5/8ths" Flattop single action using 270 grain wide meplat SWCs.
In summary, .45s don't need expansion to work. With proper loads, generally utilizing a heavy projectile, they break bones and give complete penetration. It has been working since the days when men rode horses and carried handguns stuffed with black powder.
Damn it, someone had to go and get the big bore snub itch going again.
As much as I would love to have a Jovino Effector, the price is just too out of reach, not to mention just finding one.
Plus, .41 Mag and Special are my N-Frame caliber of choice.
Hence, I give you a "modern" effector.
https://www.magnaport.com/conv.html
Combat Mini .44 Magnum Conversion
A 2 ½" or 3" Conversion only
A custom design for maximum concealability, using a Smith & Wesson 29, 629, 25 or 57 or on any N-Frame revolver. Rework grip frame to round butt k-frame; Mag-Na-Port process; Cut and crown barrel, furnish and remount Baughman front sight; Installation of front locking device; Colored front sight insert, yellow or red; Combat trigger conversion; Semi-bob hammer; Fine tune action. Velvet Hone Finish. (P.O.R.)
Pachmayr Grips are available, P.O.R.
I so want to do this.
"And for a regular dude I’m maybe okay...but what I learned is if there’s a door, I’m going out it not in it"-Duke
"Just because a girl sleeps with her brother doesn't mean she's easy..."-Blues
Yep. I passed on a 4" Model 28 when the NYSP were selling them off because I couldn't see a need for a barrel that short. I had a 6" Ruger Blackhawk and a 6" Model 19. (Still have both.) Now, I wish I hadn't.
If we have to march off into the next world, let us walk there on the bodies of our enemies.
I saw a Magna Ported version of this many years ago and immediately thought it was the coolest revolver ever. Wantsies!!
Jesus paid a debt he did not owe,
Because I owed a debt I could not pay.
Reply With Quote
