.45 Colt Ruger loads
- Thread starter Blue1
- Start date
I only have a Blackhawk, but I have blown up lots of revolvers in overload work ups to see what happens.
Measure the chamber wall thickness. Both between chambers and from the chamber to the outside.
The thicker one is stronger.
My Ruger Blackhawk 45 Colt chamber walls are between .069" and .073" to the outside.
Wall thickness is the front line in most revolver blow ups, but the bolt to frame and bolt to cylinder fit can shoot loose, making rotational looseness. Rugers START OUT with some of this.
I have not read Elmer Keith, but I hear he lost track of how many Colt 45s he blew up, but found great success with Colt 44 specials. And now they call it the 44 mag.
Not only would the 44 special have smaller inside diameter for less hoop force, but with the same sized cylinder as a 45 Colt, there would be thicker walls.
I fired one shot of my Uberti Cattleman loads in the Blackhawk, and the sharp edges of the Ruger made for painful recoil.
In 11 years I have only fired that one shot through the blackhawk.
It is waiting for me to take it apart and break the edges.
Measure the chamber wall thickness. Both between chambers and from the chamber to the outside.
The thicker one is stronger.
My Ruger Blackhawk 45 Colt chamber walls are between .069" and .073" to the outside.
Wall thickness is the front line in most revolver blow ups, but the bolt to frame and bolt to cylinder fit can shoot loose, making rotational looseness. Rugers START OUT with some of this.
I have not read Elmer Keith, but I hear he lost track of how many Colt 45s he blew up, but found great success with Colt 44 specials. And now they call it the 44 mag.
Not only would the 44 special have smaller inside diameter for less hoop force, but with the same sized cylinder as a 45 Colt, there would be thicker walls.
I fired one shot of my Uberti Cattleman loads in the Blackhawk, and the sharp edges of the Ruger made for painful recoil.
In 11 years I have only fired that one shot through the blackhawk.
It is waiting for me to take it apart and break the edges.
Maybe I do know something about Redhawks.
I have an Oct 16, 2000 "Machine Design" magazine.
On page 75 is an article, "Big Guns Need Strong Steel"
The Super Redhawk 454 has chamber walls 0.063" thick.
But the steel is "Carpenter's Custom 465, a martensitic alloy with an ultimate strength of 260 ksi at peak aging.
For Ruger's 44 mag Redhawk with 0.087" thick walls, made of 410 stainless, good for 193 ksi.
So it sounds like the Super Redhawk is ... if it is a 454, made of stronger stuff.
I have an Oct 16, 2000 "Machine Design" magazine.
On page 75 is an article, "Big Guns Need Strong Steel"
The Super Redhawk 454 has chamber walls 0.063" thick.
But the steel is "Carpenter's Custom 465, a martensitic alloy with an ultimate strength of 260 ksi at peak aging.
For Ruger's 44 mag Redhawk with 0.087" thick walls, made of 410 stainless, good for 193 ksi.
So it sounds like the Super Redhawk is ... if it is a 454, made of stronger stuff.
The 45 Colt Redhawk is stronger than the Blackhawk so chambered. The Redhawk in 45 Colt takes the round to the next level, up there with five shot custom revolvers. Brian Pierce of Handloader magazine has written articles with "Redhawk-only" loads that should be kept out of a Blackhawk. Any published "Ruger-only" 45 Colt loads can be safely fired in a Redhawk.
They should not be used in the New Vaquero or the flat top 45 Colt Blackhawk. "Ruger-only" 45 Colt data needs to come with a caveat pointing that out as not all 45 Colt Rugers are up to the task anymore.
They should not be used in the New Vaquero or the flat top 45 Colt Blackhawk. "Ruger-only" 45 Colt data needs to come with a caveat pointing that out as not all 45 Colt Rugers are up to the task anymore.
Lost Sheep
New member
I have read the same two things.Blue1 said:
Reading between the lines and not reading too much into it, I get this interpretation:
The "Ruger Blackhawk Only" is meant to get the shooter to avoid those loads in ordinary 45 Colt guns. Blackhawk is the standard for EXTRA-Ordinary srength. Thompson-Contender, Ruger Redhawks and Super-Redhawks as well as anything chambered for 454 Casull or 460 S&W will obviously take "Ruger-Only" loads. It is just shorter to say "Ruger Only" instead of listing all the firearms strong enough for the higher pressure loads.
The Ruger Redhawk's cylinder and frame are stronger than the Blackhawk's and Super Blackhawk's (by all that I have read).
Short story is that standard 45 Colt loads are for standard guns (which includes the Ruger New Vaquero which qualifies as a replica gun), replica guns, antique guns, Smith & Wesson Model 25 and 625 and others of standard strength. So-called "Ruger Only" are for guns capable of beyond SAAMI pressures.
Lost Sheep
In the revolver section of my safe, there are three 7.5" Redhawks 41,44, & 45 Colt, one Blackhawk in 30 Carbine, one Raging Bull 454, and one Colt Army 38 Spl.
I have loaded all of the RH's to the top end listed loads, that said, I usually do not make it a practice of shooting those loads o any sort of regular bsis. If there are any I DID it would have been the 180gr load listed in the Lyman #46 manual using 296. I have to add though, this isn't one for the faint of heart or recoil sensitive, and should be worked up to very carefully.
With the 45 Colt I have gone as high as 1250fps, and up to 310gr bullets. In all of my testing however, I have found no need to run the Colt loads any higher than 1150-1200fps with a 250gr bullet. In the artical by Brian Pearce on the three tiers of loads, I stick with the tier 1 & 2. No real need to go higher as these will both fully penetrate a 5 gallon bucket of sand lenghtwise with a RFN cast bullet. I figure that is more than good enough for anything I will be hunting in my woods. There is also something to say for the seemingly anemic 850 - 950fps loads as well. It might not be as flashy as the 44 magnum, but it is already starting out with almost 1/2" of frontal surface that DOES pack a whollop when it arrives.
I have loaded all of the RH's to the top end listed loads, that said, I usually do not make it a practice of shooting those loads o any sort of regular bsis. If there are any I DID it would have been the 180gr load listed in the Lyman #46 manual using 296. I have to add though, this isn't one for the faint of heart or recoil sensitive, and should be worked up to very carefully.
With the 45 Colt I have gone as high as 1250fps, and up to 310gr bullets. In all of my testing however, I have found no need to run the Colt loads any higher than 1150-1200fps with a 250gr bullet. In the artical by Brian Pearce on the three tiers of loads, I stick with the tier 1 & 2. No real need to go higher as these will both fully penetrate a 5 gallon bucket of sand lenghtwise with a RFN cast bullet. I figure that is more than good enough for anything I will be hunting in my woods. There is also something to say for the seemingly anemic 850 - 950fps loads as well. It might not be as flashy as the 44 magnum, but it is already starting out with almost 1/2" of frontal surface that DOES pack a whollop when it arrives.
Pond James Pond
New member
I opened a poll on this a while back that asked which was strongest in .44Mag.
I can't say it was scientific as there was no way to control whether people voted based on opinion or solid facts. Have a look though....
However, is it not also true that .45Colt can throw the same weight bullet, say 240gr, as the same speed as a .44Mag but with significantly lower pressure?
I remember reading a linked article written by a proponent of the .45 explaining how equivalent loads had drastically different pressures in favour of the Colt, due to the case capacity. I've never been able to find it since...
If this is the case, then the direct comparison of wall tickness may not be the best guide as the "thicker" .44 cylinder wall are already under greater pressure than the "thinner" .45 walls, no?
I can't say it was scientific as there was no way to control whether people voted based on opinion or solid facts. Have a look though....
However, is it not also true that .45Colt can throw the same weight bullet, say 240gr, as the same speed as a .44Mag but with significantly lower pressure?
I remember reading a linked article written by a proponent of the .45 explaining how equivalent loads had drastically different pressures in favour of the Colt, due to the case capacity. I've never been able to find it since...
If this is the case, then the direct comparison of wall tickness may not be the best guide as the "thicker" .44 cylinder wall are already under greater pressure than the "thinner" .45 walls, no?
Yes.
But as to which can produce more power, I am not going to try to solve mathematically. The 6 chambered cylinder is not a simple shape.
I think that the 44 mag could run into sticky cases that can't be extracted with the finger tip... so the 45 Colt will win in a cylinder with 0.060" or better chamber walls.
I have been reading those loads for the S&W 25-2 on the Clark guns [no relation] web site for 460 Rowland for almost 15 years.
That revolver is
0.061" ~ .064" to the outside
0.066" ~ .067" between chambers
With an inside diameter of ~ .49", I am not willing to run 38,000 cup.
If they had blow ups, after 15 years they would take that off the web site.
I still am afraid to do it.
The Redhawk is very strong, its cylinder is also a little bit longer than the Blackhawk too (along with a little more meat between the cylinders) which also helps out since you can load to a longer OAL (stuff more powder in).
That said, I've ran 330gr hardcasts clocking just over 1300 fps (~1315 for those counting) from my 4 5/8" Blackhawk .45 Colt and ran close to or at 40K PSI level .45 Super (Rowland level) through the ACP cylinder with no issues. Extraction was fine with new Starline brass, not sure I'd want to go much higher than that as recoil with that 330gr was, uhhh, noticeable.
That said, I've ran 330gr hardcasts clocking just over 1300 fps (~1315 for those counting) from my 4 5/8" Blackhawk .45 Colt and ran close to or at 40K PSI level .45 Super (Rowland level) through the ACP cylinder with no issues. Extraction was fine with new Starline brass, not sure I'd want to go much higher than that as recoil with that 330gr was, uhhh, noticeable.
Wreck-n-Crew
New member
Disclaimer: Everything that follows is not a proven science or laboratory tested to my knowledge and anything you get from it and do with it is at your own risk! Load data for a cartridge that is designed for a certain gun should be shot from only those guns to avoid risk of injury or death!
I also have the understanding that the flattops are limited to 23,000 CUP.
One thing that is pretty commonly done in the New Blackhawks is 460 Rowland conversions. Clarks custom guns convert the 45acp cylinder to 460 Rowland (basically reams the chamber to fit the longer case). Find it here at top of page: http://www.clarkcustomguns.com/revserv.htm#rowland Now the thing worth mentioning is that the 460 Rowland is a higher pressure round at 36,000 CUP (if memory serves me well ). Not that the higher pressure means anything on the colt cylinder I am just passing along what they do with the 45acp cylinder.
Also it has been in discussions for a long time on the Ruger forum Here :http://rugerforum.net/ruger-single-action/97935-ruger-blackhawk-bisley-45lc-high-pressure-loads.html
Now I am not saying to go and do it I am just relaying what I have gathered in my searches. I actually am going to get the Ruger Blackhawk 45 COlt/ 45acp in a few weeks. Kind of exited about it!
My understanding is that the New Blackhawks (note to "New" model) can handle up to 30,000 CUP and are safe for the Ruger only loads (IE high pressure rounds). Now keep in mind there are differing opinions on the subject. Hodgdon data says Ruger and leaves it at that yet we all know that some Rugers can't handle those pressures safely.
I also have the understanding that the flattops are limited to 23,000 CUP.
One thing that is pretty commonly done in the New Blackhawks is 460 Rowland conversions. Clarks custom guns convert the 45acp cylinder to 460 Rowland (basically reams the chamber to fit the longer case). Find it here at top of page: http://www.clarkcustomguns.com/revserv.htm#rowland Now the thing worth mentioning is that the 460 Rowland is a higher pressure round at 36,000 CUP (if memory serves me well ). Not that the higher pressure means anything on the colt cylinder I am just passing along what they do with the 45acp cylinder.
Also it has been in discussions for a long time on the Ruger forum Here :http://rugerforum.net/ruger-single-action/97935-ruger-blackhawk-bisley-45lc-high-pressure-loads.html
Now I am not saying to go and do it I am just relaying what I have gathered in my searches. I actually am going to get the Ruger Blackhawk 45 COlt/ 45acp in a few weeks. Kind of exited about it!
Hope this enlightens you...they are both right!
What you are missing is the context, the time frame of the statements. Back when Ruger introduced their .45 Colt Blackhawk (on the large .44 mag frame) people soon discovered that the guns would take significantly hotter loads than the Colt SAA (and clones).
These became known as "Ruger Only" loads. And for some time, the .45 Ruger Blackhawk was the only gun that could safely use those loads.
This was years before the Redhawk and Super Redhawk even existed.
Someone saying (today) that the Blackhawk is the only pistol capable of taking "Ruger only" loads is either repeating the (accurate at the time) information from the past (context matters here), or is not including later designed guns in their reasoning.
Yes, the Redhawk/SuperRedHawk are bigger beefier guns with more steel where it matters most (along with everywhere else
), and would have a blow up strength above the .45 Blackhawk. But remember that they were designed and produced well AFTER the .45 Blackhawk, and "Ruger only" loads were developed.TO further complicate matters, Ruger has models named "Blackhawk" with different frame sizes. The Blackhawk .45 I'm talking about is the "New Model Blackhawk".
Wreck-n-Crew
New member
Um ERrr,,,,well excited rather than exited....lol.
No one caught that? Or was everyone being nice...
Gray Ghost
New member
It is probably more an issue with the Vaquero/New Vaquero than the Blackhawk. The original Vaquero, now discontinued, handles Ruger-only loads but the New Vaquero can't.