OT: 45 Colt "Ruger Only" or "+P" Loads & New vs. Old Vaquero

awpk03s · Post by **awpk03s** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 10:23 pm

I've always read that the hardcore loads in 45 Colt that are specified as 'Ruger Only' or '+P' were for all Ruger revolvers - but only OLD Vaqueros... and the New Vaquero with the smaller frame could not handle them.

I emailed Mike at Double Tap Ammunition to get an opinion from him, and he emailed me back saying that DT's +P rounds designated 'Ruger Only' were safe to shoot in BOTH models of Vaqueros.

Interesting... what does the rest of the forum think about this? If this is the case, I may pick up one of the Montado Vaqueros in 45 Colt. Not necessarily that I will be shooting the 'wild' loads out of it.. but I don't want to have to segregate or mark ammo special or anything.

madman4570 · Post by **madman4570** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 10:38 pm

Dont know about the DT stuff but with the Hot Handloads or the Hot Buffalo Bore stuff etc.
Only the Older model will cut it.
Huge difference in the guns(I got them) and honestly I like the older model(mines a 1993 Stainless model)
That gun is built like a TANK!
Get a mint older stainless one!
Somewhere I have a Guns&Ammo Mag talking about the older Vaquero when loaded with 335grainers at around 1350-1400fps dropping elk(at reasonable distance like 75yards comparable to how they drop with a .338 Winchester Rifle.(ya, I know but thats what it says)

To me the quality in the older model is vastly better.(maybe my new one was made on a friday?
Why worry and wonder when the Oldie and goodie will take care of it all!

if I was going to get the new Vaquero again, it would be in the .357 Mag cal.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:08 am

The reason the Vaquero was able to handle the higher pressures of the heavy .45 Colt loads is because of size. It was built on the same large frame as the Blackhawks and had lots of steel in the cylinder.

The New Vaquero is just a Colt on an ego trip. It is built on the same mid sized frame as the Colt SAA , the Uberti copies and the mid sized Blackhawks. The cylinder is not much bigger than the Colt, about the same size as the Uberti really so there just is not the same amount of steel there.

"IF" Buffalo Bore says the guns will handle his ammo then he must be loading them to lower pressures than CorBon or Grizzly ammo does.

Personally I would not shoot such heavy loads in a New Vaquero, or one of the new Flat Top Blackhawks in .45 Colt. I just do not consider it prudent to risk injury like that.

Joe

madman4570 · Post by **madman4570** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:25 am

Good points Joe!
Honestly, that new model Ruger I have its quality isn't that bad (I mean dont get me wrong, its a nice gun) it just seems the older one just seems quite a bit nicer when you hold it in your hands or shoot it ?
But someone else holding/shooting either could favor the newer one.(and that's cool,cause we all have our views)

kimwcook · Post by **kimwcook** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:59 am

I agree with the professor. I wouldn't even think about shooting "Ruger only" loads in a New Vaquero. Looking to blow the cylinder and top strap, IMO. I'd shoot Colt SAA level loads only. Beings you have both, old and new, and you're looking to shoot "Ruger only" loads, you will have to keep them seperate.

Post by **Hobie** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 8:51 am

New Vaqueros and New Model Flattops should be treated like Colt SAs I think. NM Blackhawks on the big .44 Mag frame are the Ruger only load guns. Simple.

Some like Buffalo Bore are using Power Pistol or equivalent giving those performance figures with those pressures. I trust BB's opinion of their loads. Do not know the other fellow. I use BB's .44 Special loads in my FTs with zero problems.

IIRC the NVs are now just marked Vaquero. Also, I think the smaller frame BLUED guns are the best from Ruger in a while.

Don McDowell · Post by **Don McDowell** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:37 am

The outside cylinder wall thickness and the thickness in the locking bolt notches on both my New model Vaquero and my Blackhawk are nearly indenticle. The New Vaquero is smaller diameter around the cylinder pin.
I would not shoot the high pressure stuff in the new vaqeuro , mostly because of the grip shape of the gun it's very uncomfortable to shoot with the higher velocity rounds.
The New Vaquero's cylinder is shorter and heavier bullets like the rcbs 260 saa and others fill the cylinders right to the edge, a little bullet jump and the cylinder will be tied up.
There are pressure tested factory reload recipes that are for the "weaker" guns that will hurl a 250 gr bullet at 1000fps, and they work just fine.

Now comes the food for thought, the 45 colt as it was originally loaded has been around since 1873, you'ld think that such an inaffective round as that would of long gone under but it never ceased production. Could it be that the junky ol 250 gr bullet at 850-950 fps works for most anything needing done with a handgun?

If a person really needs earspliting , palm stinging recoil to get full use of his testosterone, they make the 454 casull.

gak · Post by **gak** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:05 am

Without requoting, +1 what Joe Miller, Hobie and others have said. There is a *significant* difference in cylinder diameter - (particularly noticeable on the .45) -- between the two models. OTOH, there is more than enough "beef" in smaller .357s, the same cautions generally don't apply, and in fact I much prefer the smaller midframe guns for that chambering, where the "44 Magnum frame" guns in .357 seem a bit overkill (now that we have the midframes to compare).

Also, regarding quality, while I never had an issue with my older large frame Vaqueros, I'd agree with those who have said the opposite from one of the poster's experience -- and do believe the newer ones are "better" in all regards of function and build (reverse index pawl/charge hole alignment, construction process, etc, that's been well chronicled). .

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:43 am

Hobie,

There was a run for one of Ruger's distributors that were marked on Vaquero. But all the others from Ruger's regular production runs were and are from what I've read over on TRF still marked New Vaquero.

Quality between the full sized Vaquero and smaller New Vaquero is a variable thing. Some are good, some are not.

Don,
I have several hundred of those old real long nosed Keith variants cast by the late Stuffit over on Handloads.com. When loaded and crimped in the crimp grove the COAL is 1.75" and like the loads you mentioned with your smaller New Vaquero they fill the chambers on my OM BH flush right to the surface. The only way to keep them there is tight neck tension with a really firm crimp.
Over 9.0grs Unique they shoot exceptionally well.
I'd like to find me one of those Ohaus molds.

Joe

gak · Post by **gak** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:05 am

Quote:
"There was a run for one of Ruger's distributors that were marked on Vaquero. But all the others from Ruger's regular production runs were and are from what I've read over on TRF still marked New Vaquero."

These "Vaquero"-marked New Vaqueros - to date - are only the .44 Specials.

madman4570 · Post by **madman4570** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:12 pm

gak wrote:Without requoting, +1 what Joe Miller, Hobie and others have said. There is a *significant* difference in cylinder diameter - (particularly noticeable on the .45) -- between the two models. OTOH, there is more than enough "beef" in smaller .357s, the same cautions generally don't apply, and in fact I much prefer the smaller midframe guns for that chambering, where the "44 Magnum frame" guns in .357 seem a bit overkill (now that we have the midframes to compare).

Also, regarding quality, while I never had an issue with my older large frame Vaqueros, I'd agree with those who have said the opposite from one of the poster's experience -- and do believe the newer ones are "better" in all regards of function and build (reverse index pawl/charge hole alignment, construction process, etc, that's been well chronicled). .

Getting back to the original question, If you want to shoot stout loads through the New Model (forget it)
We can debate which gun has better quality? but for a large person(6'4"--240lbs)with BIG hands shooting the new model with anything but tame loads (at least for myself)is more uncomfortable that stout loads from the old model.
How the gun shoots partly means how the gun handles in ones hands.

Don McDowell · Post by **Don McDowell** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 2:11 pm

Joe I shoot the 255 KT rcbs, very similar to the ohaus. Stuff 12 grs of bludot ( look on Alliants web) under that bullet and get very close to 1k fps, and it's quite a handful in the NV.
I saw one of those Ohaus moulds on gunbroker or ebay not long ago.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 2:20 pm

Don McDowell wrote:Joe I shoot the 255 KT rcbs, very similar to the ohaus. Stuff 12 grs of bludot ( look on Alliants web) under that bullet and get very close to 1k fps, and it's quite a handful in the NV.
I saw one of those Ohaus moulds on gunbroker or ebay not long ago.

I shoot Keiths light load of 18.5grs with a 265 SWC from my BH but so far I haven't tried it from my Uberti. I'm sure it would be safe to do so, I just haven't done it.

If you see another one of those Ohaus molds like Stuffit had, could you please let me know. Single or double cavity, don't matter.

Joe

Don McDowell · Post by **Don McDowell** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 2:36 pm

Joe I don't think there'ld be any problem with Keiths load in a Colt clone, so long as it's good quality. I chrono'ld that load out of my blackhawk , I don't remember the exact numbers, but it wasn't really all that flashy..
I will let you know if I see one of those.

Post by **Old Savage** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:33 pm

Note on the Keith load - he was using a 250 gr bullet according to Sixguns and 2400 seems to be somewhat hotter now from what I have loaded in the 45-70 over the years and what a few others have said. In addition the specs on the barrel diameters have changed from .454 to 451-2 in some cases so I think I would work up from a lower level to see what pressures occurred in my particular gun.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:07 pm

Fred,

In the articles and texts I have and have read he used a 260gr bullet.
The 2400 of today might be a bit quicker than that of his day, but according to Alliant and my shooting it's no more than the difference from one lot to the next.

At any rate in my tests modern 2400 and the 265gr bullet is a very accurate and clean load.

You wanna see some smoking loads go find a Hodgdons #26 manual and check their silly wet loads. Whoo hooo! 30,000 CUP level. My wrists complain after 18 rounds from my OM BH.

Just saying.

Joe

Post by **Old Savage** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:49 pm

Joe, page 272 of Keith's Sixguns - 18.5 gr of 2400 with a 235 or 250 gr bullet and he comments that this is maximum using either the old cases or new. Alliant listed their a load at 1250 for 25 grs of 2400 and a 400 gr bullet. I used that in a Marlin 1895 SS with micro groove and got a wonderfully accurate load at that level years ago. After getting a newer one with the Ballard rifling and using current powder, I chronographed 1475 fps which I repeated and found the same. Due to this I asked the question and others did at times if there had been a change. Many thought there had been. Unless you are chronographing loads it might not be noticeable particularly in pistols. So given all the variables and information I think it is advisable to check this in individual guns and I am sure you agree. In your gun almost any listed load is safe but in the clones ???? not so sure. I met a guy who blew up a Marlin 1895 SS and saw his repaired hand and examined the rifle OUCH!!! Paco wrote about blowing up a Uberti clone -- so --- caution and safety. Let's not assume what was safe 40- 50 years ago is still safe when we call so easily check.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 8:05 pm

Well, upon re-reading the articles I have on my hard drive it appears that you are correct. I shan't argue the point further except to say that to date I have used my version of Keith's load only in my Blackhawk, S&W 25-5, Win 94AE and Marlin 1894. Therefore I'm still on safe ground.

Now, to find where I read the 260gr bullet weight. I'll let you know when I find it.

Joe

Post by **Old Savage** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 8:17 pm

I have no doubt it is safe in all the guns you mention. My concern is in the clones where the steel in thin in the cylinder like my Rough Rider by Pietta. I do have some 28,000 pound loads here but hopefully have marked them well enough in red as for the M92 Rossi only. I am not even interested in firing them in my FA or Ruger.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 8:23 pm

Old Savage wrote:I have no doubt it is safe in all the guns you mention. My concern is in the clones where the steel in thin in the cylinder like my Rough Rider by Pietta. I do have some 28,000 pound loads here but hopefully have marked them well enough in red as for the M92 Rossi only. I am not even interested in firing them in my FA or Ruger.

Fred,
No argument there.
I had just read the weight "260" and it stuck in my mind. I found at least one article where Keith used that weight for his .45 Colt bullet and am sending it to you via 3 emails. To big to post here.

Joe

Post by **Old Savage** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 8:32 pm

He mentions three bullet weights in Sixguns but only cites two but it is a reprint through Wolfe I think. May be 260. Again the key is he says Max and did blow up some Colt SAAs.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 8:40 pm

Old Savage wrote:He mentions three bullet weights in Sixguns but only cites two but it is a reprint through Wolfe I think. May be 260. Again the key is he says Max and did blow up some Colt SAAs.

The two Colts he blew up were with black powder and a 300gr 45-90 bullet when an old worn out balloon head case ruptured.
And his bullet cast at 260grs over a charge of #80 powder in his wife's gun.
If I remember that correctly.

But I'm not overly concerned as I'm not shooting this load in balloon head cases in first generation Colt SAAs.

Joe

Post by **Old Savage** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:49 pm

Would be interesting to know what the modern clones will take. I only intend to shoot standard loads in mine.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:54 pm

Old Savage wrote:Would be interesting to know what the modern clones will take. I only intend to shoot standard loads in mine.

That I do not know. What I do know is I discussed my version of the Keith load with Steve Young after he rebuilt my Uberti and he told me it would be fine with it.
I have not fired any in it, since I have the Ruger. I've been sticking with loads around 15 or 16K PSI max for the top end. Standard loads normally.

Joe

Post by **Old Savage** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 2:21 am

In looking through the reloading manuals I have at hand, none would allow the Keith level load with modern components listed for other than the Ruger on up. In going from 240 to 250 gr they seem to drop the charge one gr and 17.5 is the maximum I see listed at 240 gr for the non Rugers basically Colts and clones in the single action and some restrict the 25-5 to this also. While some may think that more is fine I doubt they would publish those loads or recommend them in print. Speer 11 lists 18.7 gr of 2400 maximum for a Ruger with a 250 gr lead bullet. Speer 12 lists 15.4 maximum for a 250 lead at 972 fps. That is out of a 6" S&W 25-5. 18.0 Gr is their listed maximum for a 260 jacketed in a Ruger 7 1/2". They list the SAAMI maximum average as 14,000 psi. I'll have to look in Paco's book to see what load blew up his Cattleman but I think it was very high - near 30,000.

DixieBoy · Post by **DixieBoy** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 2:36 am

awpk - Getting back to your original question, I would advise you to get your hands on anything and everything that Brian Pearce has written for Handloader Magazine on .45 Colts. I trust his info on pretty much all revolver calibers that start with "4."

Volume 246 has a great article about the RCBS-270-SAA that Handloader Magazine's editor, Dave Scovill designed. It IS a great bullet but I don't know if it's any better, or more accurate, than Keith's old SWC design. What it WILL DO, however, is let shooters with modern (say, 3rd generation) Colts and "New" Vaqueros shoot a bullet with excellent characteristics, without having the nose of the bullet sticking out too far. Same goes for the Smiths that can't handle the overall cartridge lengths (OAL) that start approaching 1.70" or more which some of the Keith bullets give you.

In Pearce's article in #246 he breaks down three power levels and gives loads for each of them with the RCBS-270-SAA. The categories are 14,000 psi, 20,000 psi, and 32,000 CUP. I believe that if you stay with the 14,000 psi loads you should be absolutely safe.

Over the past few weeks I've been doing some load development for my Blackhawk (new in 1999). With the above mentioned RCBS bullet I've been getting very satisfying accuracy with 10.0 grains of Unique and 13.0 grains of Hodgdon's HS - 6 powders. Both of those are in Pearce's Category 2 section - somewhere in the 20,000 psi neighborhood, and running right around 1,000 fps, maybe 50 fps more, at most. I don't cast my own bullets yet, but looking forward to doing that when I move. The bullets I've had great success with have been from Mt. Baldy and Montana Bullet Works. Both of those outfits make very good bullets. The Mt. Baldy is cast out of a slightly softer alloy, BHN 11, and they're weighing in at 284-285 grains. The Montana Bullet Works interpretation of the very same bullet, the RCBS-270-SAA, runs BHN 15 and comes in at 290 grains. Both are superior products if you are looking to load your own.

I'll be testing some of Beartooth Bullets soon and, from what I've heard, I should be very pleased with these too.

These mid-range loads are all I believe I'll ever want or need from the Blackhawk. Recoil is not a big deal, accuracy is bordering on superb, and there is plenty of punch. Had a chance to shoot some steel plates with these loads recently. I've shot the plates with a variety of .45 acp pistols for years, and always enjoyed it. But there's nothing like seeing the plates just VANISH when you hit 'em with the old .45 Colt. Very satisfying.

Sorry if this is long, but I hope it can be of help to you. - DixieBoy

P.S. I just saw Old Savage's reply to your question before posting this. One of the most frustrating things for anyone wanting to load for the modern .45 Colt revolvers is reading what the new loading manuals will tell you. For instance, the new Lyman manual, 49th edition, doesn't even have a dedicated Ruger/Freedom Arms section. That's ridiculous. For a lot of us, we're looking to pursue a bit more velocity because, in my experience at least, it has been the ticket to much greater accuracy.

Given that I had to open up the Blackhawk's cylinder throats (that's a whole nuther story) to .4525 - .4530, to get them all the same dimension, shooting jacketed bullets doesn't give me much accuracy. Cast is definitely the way to go, as many thousands of us have found out. For the guys producing loading manuals to continue to pretend that we don't exist can only be explained by the presence of lawyers in the mix. Get your hands on as much as you can that's been written by Pearce, and also, other guys like John Taffin, John Linebaugh, and a few others that the guys might suggest here. Be safe and have fun.

Post by **Old Savage** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 3:04 am

Dixie Boy - the existence of this thread itself is indicative of the issue in a reloading manual and the levels. Now they come to "which" Ruger. And, what is safe in it. Some one like yourself who has done the work to sort things out and seek specific knowledge knows some of the differences but the issue is now further muddled by the existence of Rugers of various strengths and the legal pitfalls of publishing broadly safe data. Now, what is the pressure level of the old Keith load with new components? If we are to believe Speer, it is likely over the SAAMI specs.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 8:13 am

Old Savage, others,

Did the the fourth email I sent ever come through to you? Well, if not, here it is. Forum member Johndefresno has the Quick Load program. I know it is not a pressure test gun and a chronograph, but it and his tests have shown remarkable similarity.
..........................................................
At any rate, this load is my heavier bullet version of Keith's load: 18.5grs of 2400 under a 265gr Keith bullet. Actually a Lyman 454424.
The gun data used was my old Uberti Cattleman. The results; the pressure is less than 20,000psi. For comparison sake, the .45ACP is SAAMI rated at 21,000 PSI.
Every revolver since the .45 ACP was invented that has been chambered for the .45 Colt has also been chambered for or had an axillary cylinder chambered for the ACP round. If the revolver will stand the 21K PSI of the ACP round, it will take the same pressures from the .45 Colt round. We've covered this subject before right here on this forum. Here is a screen shot of the .pdf file sent to me by forum member Johndefresno.

265 K - 18.5-2400_web.JPG

We keep hashing this over but modern smokeless .45 Colts are not the week little fragile things people make them out to be. Modern Colts, copies, New Vaqueros, New Model Flattop (midsize) .45 Colt Rugers are not as strong as the large size Blackhawks but they are not fragile. And each and every one of these guns are available in .45 ACP. So they will handle heavier loads than SAAMI just fine.

Weather you want to believe this is your choice.

Joe

Post by **Old Savage** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 8:48 am

The 45 Auto cylinders have thicker cylinder walls. Paco proved you can blow the cylinder in a Uberti with loads that are too hot. Where is the line - who knows.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 9:15 am

Old Savage wrote:The 45 Auto cylinders have thicker cylinder walls. Paco proved you can blow the cylinder in a Uberti with loads that are too hot. Where is the line - who knows.

The .45 Auto cylinders are not that much thicker, and you can blow up a full sized Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 Mag with loads that are too hot.
You can blow up any gun with loads that are too hot. That is too generic a statement.

So, I've said what I came to say now I'm going to over to the cantina for some tamales, buritos, a chimi changa and an ice cold beer.
Oh the dancer is a sweet heart to behold.

Joe

awp101 · Post by **awp101** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 9:26 am

J Miller wrote: So, I've said what I came to say now I'm going to over to the cantina for some tamales, buritos, a chimi changa and an ice cold beer.

At 0930? I like the way you think...

Post by **Old Savage** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 9:29 am

Enjoy

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 9:51 am

Ok already. The cylinder walls aren't the only problem. So, thes loads haven't torn your guns aparts...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yet!

But for how long can you count of that? On which round is your beloved $1100 Colt, or $600 Vaquero, or your $450 Italian clone likely to come apart? The 10th, the 50th, the 5,000th?

See the shallow flame cutting on the underside of the topstrap? This revolver has seen a few hundred thousand rounds, the VAST majority of which are cowboy action loads... and tens of thousands of which were BP loads. When rebuilt a few years ago I was told this gun is still quite safe with SAAMI ammo. And I have fired it with factory 225 Silvertips to check point of aim, etc... Closely inspect your guns... see if you don't see some evidence of flame cutting in your revolvers.

Then there my "new" 3rd Gen Colt, probably less than 100,000 rounds thru this one, many thousands of which have been BP, either blanks or loaded rounds; but, none of which have been over my light cowboy loads:

Look at this clone. It has been fired less than 10 thousand times. Why it even has factory cuts up there to help direct the flame.

And there's this Uberti copy, also less than 10 thousand rounds fired:

And you want to fire over SAMMI spec ammo in gun not rated for it, clearly designed for lower levels. IMO, you're flat playing with your life and those around you, because, sooner or later, your gun will decide "enough is enough!"

Guys, that was my sugar-coated version. Just ask me what I really think.

Don McDowell · Post by **Don McDowell** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 9:56 am

There's really not enough difference in cylinderwall thickness between the acp and the colt cartridges to worry about. It would be in the .000x at most, the case demensions are so similar.
The lock bolt notch on all cylinders is the weakest part, that why the really tough revolvers have that notch located in the web between the chambers.
The biggest reason the 45 colt pressures are held so low is because Colt did not warrant their handguns for smokeless powder use until after 1909.
Still it's possible to push a 250ish gr bullet to 1000fps and stay within the 14000 cup pressure saami limits. If a 250 gr bullet at 900-1000 fps won't handle the job, then it's your mistake for not bringing a rifle in the first place.

Don McDowell · Post by **Don McDowell** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 10:00 am

And you want to fire over SAMMI spec ammo in gun not rated for it, clearly designed for lower levels. IMO, you're flat playing with your life and those around you, because, sooner or later, your gun will decide "enough is enough!"

Griff if you read the owners book with any of the RUGER or Colt handguns it's easily apparent that they do not warrant their guns for the use of any "handloaded" or "reloaded" ammunition, only factory ammo...

That's if you want to get really superanal about it.

Post by **Old Savage** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 10:15 am

Not really the warranty he was concerned about.

Don McDowell · Post by **Don McDowell** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 10:31 am

It's all tied together, if the warranty won't cover it, do you really want to do it?

And it's still a basic fact of the old colt round it's been doing what it's been doing, in it's original form since 1873, there's got to be a reason for that

Could that reason possibly be , because it just flat works?

Those of us with experience with the old warhorse think so....

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 10:40 am

J Miller wrote:So, I've said what I came to say now I'm going to over to the cantina for some tamales, buritos, a chimi changa and an ice cold beer. Oh the dancer is a sweet heart to behold.

NOW I know why you haven't moved out of Illinois yet...! If there's a cantina like that next door, maybe the rest of us will be moving there...

Griff wrote:Look at this clone. It has been fired less than 10 thousand times. Why it even has factory cuts up there to help direct the flame.

I've seen those grooves on guns, and always figured they were just sort of accidental where the threading tap was allowed to somehow bump the frame; I never could figure out how they could do that accidentally, so now I learned something new.

I always wondered why they didn't put a little insert of 'blast plate' super-hard steel or other material there for the really hot guns like .30 Carbine, .357 Maximum, etc...

DixieBoy · Post by **DixieBoy** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 10:51 am

Well, this thread sure didn't go to bed when I did ! haha ...

I agree that one problem with the different pressure levels which the various .45 Colt revolvers can handle is, how to break this all down for the reader if you produce loading manuals ? Admittedly, that's got to be a headache.

And now, even those companies like Speer and Hornady, for instance, who've been willing to accept that there are revolvers absolutely capable of safely handling greater than the 14,000 psi SAMMI limit for the .45 Colt have to take into account the introduction of some Rugers which are not quite as strong as previous models. That's got to be a huge PITA for the manual writers.

What do the manual writers do ? Print a section for "standard" level loads, and then two sections for the various Ruger levels ? Or more ?

This could all be looked at as a big pain in the keister, but because I've wanted to pursue the subject I've had the opportunity to learn alot about the cartridge, my own gun, and a good bit about bullets and loading. It's safe to say that my interest in the .45 Colt has been the deciding factor in getting me in to casting bullets eventually.

Most importantly, it has been tremendously satisfying getting to know this great old cartridge better. Can you imagine, our .45 Colt, created in 1873, is still exciting guys like us 138 years later ? That's nothing short of incredible. - DixieBoy

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 10:59 am

AJMD429 wrote:I've seen those grooves on guns, and always figured they were just sort of accidental where the threading tap was allowed to somehow bump the frame; I never could figure out how they could do that accidentally<snip>...

Shhh... that didn't support the point I was making, so I ignored it, and made up my own!

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:30 am

OK, I'm back from the cantina. Got fed, entertained and a bit of a siesta afterward.

I read your posts. All I got to say is you are a bit paranoid ...... 'er maybe I should say overly concerned about these loads.

And if I were restricted to pip squeak loads like you've been shooting from those guns I'd quit shooting. For the most part I shoot SAAMI level loads from all my 45s. I have one load I shoot that exceeds SAAMI but not by much, and one that doesn't even exceed .45 ACP levels.
I have no qualms about shooting them in any modern .45 Colt revolver.
There is no danger of the gun failing catastrophically. The heaviest load may increase some wear over time, but when you use a machine wear is inevitable.

Now, I'm off to visit the cute dancer from the cantina. She's got something she wants to tell me.

Joe

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:37 am

Oh before I go, DixieBoy you are over thinking the equation. Making it too complicated.
There needs only to be two levels of loads for the .45 Colt. Standard for Colt level revolvers, and heavy for the LARGE FRAME Ruger Blackhawks and Vaqueros and T/C, FAs and the like.
Well, perhaps we should make that three levels and add in pip squeak loads for cowboy action shooters and those who have fallen prey to the ".45 Colt guns can't handle any pressure wives tales" group.

So long.

Joe

Post by **Old Savage** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:40 pm

Well shoot the original load then. And what were the ballistics of the original load.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:00 pm

The original load? If we're still talking .45 Colt about a 255gr bullet at 850 ± fps. In other words the standard SAAMI level load.

Joe

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 1:25 pm

J Miller wrote:The original load? If we're still talking .45 Colt about a 255gr bullet at 850 ± fps. In other words the standard SAAMI level load.
Joe

That's right... not a 300gr HP at 900fps. Frame stretch is a very real issue when you start exceeding SAAMI specs in your ammo.