TexasCHLforum.com

This is probably going to fall into the category of "stupid question", but from a ballistic point of view, aren't .44 and .45LC pretty close to each other? The cartridges look to be extremely close externally. I know that handloaders can load .45LC hotter, but it seems like over all, these calibers are two versions of the same thing. Of course we can always split hairs over muzzle energy and such, but am I missing something?

Not sure about handloads, but off the shelf 44 mags have quite a bit more pop than a 45LC. 44 special is closer to 45LC ballistically.

Here are the balistics for comparison between the two:

Ballistic performance:
.45LC
Bullet weight/type - Velocity - Energy
255 gr (16.5 g) Lead SWC - 961 ft/s (293 m/s) - 523 ft·lbf (709 J)
200 gr (13 g) XTP - 1,032 ft/s (315 m/s) - 473 ft·lbf (641 J)
230 gr (15 g) XTP - 969 ft/s (295 m/s) - 480 ft·lbf (650 J)
250 gr (16 g) XTP - 929 ft/s (283 m/s) - 479 ft·lbf (649 J)
325 gr (21.1 g) Buffalo Bore heavy lead +P - 1,325 ft/s (404 m/s) - 1,267 ft·lbf (1,718 J)
Test barrel length: 7.5 inches (190 mm)
Source: Accurate Powder

.44 mag
Ballistic performance
Bullet weight/type - Velocity - Energy
200 gr (13 g) XPB Lead Free - 1,625 ft/s (495 m/s) - 1,173 ft·lbf (1,590 J)
225 gr (14.6 g) XPB Lead Free - 1,500 ft/s (460 m/s) - 1,124 ft·lbf (1,524 J)
240 gr (16 g) Bonded JSP* - 1,500 ft/s (460 m/s) - 1,200 ft·lbf (1,600 J)
320 gr (21 g) WFNGC HC* - 1,300 ft/s (400 m/s) - 1,201 ft·lbf (1,628 J)
340 gr (22 g) LFN +P+ - 1,425 ft/s (434 m/s) - 1,533 ft·lbf (2,078 J)
Test barrel length: 7.5" (*6.5")
Source: DoubleTap[1] Buffalo Bore[2]

As you can see, just looking at the 200 grain bullet, there is a significant difference in energy for the .44 mag vs. .45 LC

Are you asking about modern .45 magnum rounds or the old west ".44", which was really a 44-40 Winchester?

Pawpaw1 wrote:Are you asking about modern .45 magnum rounds or the old west ".44", which was really a 44-40 Winchester?

Or did you mean modern .44 magnum rounds versus the .44-40?

Thanks Keith B. I have been looking at a bunch of charts, but comparing 200 grain is a very good bench mark. A family member is looking to sale a next to new Ruger Redhawk in .45lc. I already have a nice S&W in .44, so I am trying to figure out if I "need" the Ruger. Just out of curiosity I took a .44 and a .45Lc round and compared them, and was really surprised by how similar they were physically so I figured I would ask some folks more knowledgeable than myself. I have heard that some handloaders prefer .45lc, but obviously ammo availability is much better in .44. Thanks for your help guys and gals!

karder wrote:Thanks Keith B. I have been looking at a bunch of charts, but comparing 200 grain is a very good bench mark. A family member is looking to sale a next to new Ruger Redhawk in .45lc. I already have a nice S&W in .44, so I am trying to figure out if I "need" the Ruger. Just out of curiosity I took a .44 and a .45Lc round and compared them, and was really surprised by how similar they were physically so I figured I would ask some folks more knowledgeable than myself. I have heard that some handloaders prefer .45lc, but obviously ammo availability is much better in .44. Thanks for your help guys and gals!

Again, are you talking about .44 magnum, as opposed to .44 Special or some other .44 caliber?

The .45LC can be loaded to very nearly .44 magnum ballistics, but in the end, the .44 wins, if horsepower is you primary concern. And like you say, the .44 ammo is going to be easier to find... ...although this could be a pretty good reason to start handloading.

I was referring to .44 magnum. I was thinking about another revolver for camping/hiking in bear country (northern Utah, Colorado and Arizona). I can always take my .44, so horsepower in not the entire issue. I had the opportunity to fire a nice .45lc and have developed somewhat of an unexplained attraction to the round. The utilitarian side of my brain is now arguing about why I would get a revolver chambered in a round that is tougher to find ammo for when I could just stay with the trusty .44 magnum.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Pawpaw1 wrote:Are you asking about modern .45 magnum rounds or the old west ".44", which was really a 44-40 Winchester?

Or did you mean modern .44 magnum rounds versus the .44-40?

Thanks for the correction. I have an excuse. I had some heavy-duty dental surgery done this morning!

karder wrote:This is probably going to fall into the category of "stupid question", but from a ballistic point of view, aren't .44 and .45LC pretty close to each other? The cartridges look to be extremely close externally. I know that handloaders can load .45LC hotter, but it seems like over all, these calibers are two versions of the same thing. Of course we can always split hairs over muzzle energy and such, but am I missing something?

They are pretty close velocity wise, if you use bullets in the 240 gr. or lower. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is, that the 45 colt can push the same bullets wts.as the 44 mag, but at a lower pressure. Some people put less value on muzzle energy and more on another formula, Taylor knockout formula, TKO. The TKO formula takes into account, bullet diameter and shape of the bullets. The 45 colt really comes into it's own when using the heavier bullets. Comparing the two, the Redhawk is a step up in strength from the S&W 29, but the 29 is gonna be lighter to carry.