Some ifnormation I recieved recently pointed out that the max load pressures consistantly seen for 45 Colt (in Rugers ect) are in the 29,000 - 30,000 CUP (according to all Hodgdon loading information I can find). Current SAAMI pressure specs state 25,000 CUP as maximum. Now, I load the 30,000 CUP loads for my daily shooters, as that is what I'll use for basic hunting, and allows for a better response when I use my bear loads. Now, the information I was presented stated that the max pressures for the 45 colt were infact derived from the pressures of a 44 magnum out of a S&W model 29. The blued 29 was capable of handling 44 magnum pressures (which I will get into) with perfect safety (otherwise S&W wouldn't have sold them....). The pressure numbers for 45 Colt were derived from measuring the FLUTED cylinder wall thickness of the blued 29, and then measured the thickness of the 45 colt cylinder for the blued model N-frame (forget the model number). They found the percentage difference between the 44 Mag and the 45 Colt cylinder wall thickness, and took that percentage away from 44 magnum, gave it a 1.5 safety margin, and published that number as the max pressure for 45 Colt.

Question, do you think the cylinder strength of a blued Smith 44 mag cylinder is in the same league as a Ruger 44 magnum cylinder? Heck, the Ruger is obscenely stronger built than the Smith in all respects, considering the lack of a swing out cylinder. Then lets add that stainless steel can handle higher pressures than standard blued steel. So how does a simple wall thickness measurment of a fluted Smith Model 29 have anything to do with a stainless non-fluted Ruger in 45 Colt? Cojnsidering the lawyer driven state of safety we live in, I'd venture to say that the 25,000 CUP stated by SAAMI is extremely conservative, and is actually a number that was pulled out of their rear end.

To prove a point, I will show some numbers regarding pressures and the decline of them:

357 Magnum original pressure spec: 47,000 PSI
357 Magnum pressure spec current SAAMI: 35,000 PSI

41 Magnum pressure spec Speer #11: 43,500 CUP
41 Magnum pressure spec current SAAMI: 36,000 PSI (40,000 CUP)

44 Magnum pressure spec Speer #11: 43,500 CUP
44 Magnum pressure spec current SAAMI: 36,000 PSI (40,000 CUP)

(now how does the lack of difference between 41 magnum and 44 Magnum make sense?)

454 Casull SAAMI pressure spec: 65,000 PSI or 50,000 CUP. Hodgdons shows it to be 55,000 CUP. (lots of varying data with 454 around)


Question: Considering that Freedom Arms brass was the only brass (to my knowledge) to actually have thicker brass in the 454 than the 45 Colt, and that Starline brass seems to use the same brass as 454 for 45 Colt (just cut down, thickness inbetween 454 FA and 45 Colt for both). why can the 454 be loaded to 50,000 CUP (we'll use lowest number for the heck of it) and the 45 Colt only to 25,000 CUP? Brass isn't a reason, and due to my argument above, cylinder strength isn;t a reason. So what is the reason? I'd put money that when Ruger did their destructive failure tests on their cylinders, that the point of failure was well beyond that of 454 pressure specs. Unfortunately, Ruger will not release that data, so we are all guessing maximum pressure specs for the 45 Colt. What needs to happen is a private individual (I don't have the funding, or I would do it) obtain some 45 Colt Ruger cylinders, and start destructive testing of them. Then, at that point, will we know. Otherwise, all numbers are based off of a weak (in Ruger respects) Smith and Wessen Model 29 44 Magnums in blued steel for Ruger 45 Colt loads.

Another note, I learned how my friend developes his heavy loads for 45 Colt, and has done this forever. He measures how far down in the brass the bullet goes, cuts that much off of a piece of 45 Colt brass, and uses it as a scoop for W296. He has been known to use the loading press to compact the powder to whatever his body weight will allow him to to fit it in there. At no point has there been any pressure signs.

Lawyer driven statement:

At no point believe any peice of information posted here, for it can cause injury or death. I take no responsablity for your safety if you use any information posted. This information is for entertainment only.

There, now don't badger me on bad information, this is just stuff that has come to my attention, and has been experienced. I am looking for constructive critisizm here, not anything about how irresponsable I am. Just cause it is here, does not mean you have to do it.

Skligmund
I read some where, can't remember where that the SRH 454 Casull had a failure at 105,000 PSI when the testing was done for the 454 Casull. That was cylinder failer. Cause they wanted to know how much the TRUE six shooter would take. Now I own one and I can be very sure that I'd never get to those pressures as it would be very unshootable as top end loads are very rough in the SRH. Now that being said as for the 45LC all the fuss on lower 25000 CUP loads are for a very good reason as there are plenty of revolvers out there that will BLOW up at anything greater than 25000 cup! Even the New Vacquero is not rated for the Ruger Only loads!! Back in the Black Powder days the 45LC was loaded in very weak Balloon Head cases these are nolonger made ,but can still be found-rare but still out there as are many older revolvers and new ones based on weak designs not made for anthing over 25,000 CUP. New Ruger BH,SBH,SRH and old Style Vacqueros can and do handle heavy LC loading as do most Win 94's, Rossi 92's and some others rifles. Old 73's and the new knock off's should not fire heavy 45LC loadings as they are of weak design! When I load heavy for the great old 45LC I go for a velocity instead of a pressure rating!
A good 255-325gr cast bullet at 1000-1200 fps will kill any thing you want to kill with a revolver in the lower 48. Put them same loadings in a Rifle (Levergun) and you have a very capable hunting firearm.

Exactly. i was reading an article a guy wrote (I might be able to find it) who shoots 45 colt rated at 60,000 PSI out of his new 1894 and 1892's (old ones don't hold up as he explains in his experiences) . He says he used these loads out of a Ruger also. Now, I don't know where he got his pressure numbers, so I find it somewhat questionable, but I also find it reasonable. I was guessing an 80,000 PSI failure.

Another topic question.

Anybody actually blow up (not crack) a Ruger cylinder loading too much? I'm not talking about 5 grains of 296 stupid (explosive...) or mixing powders, but just packing more powder. I've heard of cracking the cylinder by double charging something like Bullseye or Unique, but never a catostrophic failure such as the Colt Anaconda in another post..

SAAMI spec for the .45 Colt is WAY under 25,000 psi / cup / whatever.

More along the lines of 16,000 CUP, maybe....

I've shot a Smith .45LC with loads that are very mild in a Ruger single-action... and frankly, don't want any more than that. Recoil was already bad enough.

There is a reason I shoot only Single Action Rugers (usually with the better Bisley grip frame) and not double action revolvers. :D

I actually don't enjoy shooting a standard 44 magnum load out of a Ruger Redhawk. I don't find it fun at all. Infact, I don't like it. I'm very accurate, but I don't enjoy it. I do, however, enjoy shooting heavy loads out of my Rugers. Some mildly heavy loads I shot yesterday consisted of a Hornady 250 XTP with 26.0 grains of W296, and a 300 XTP with 23.0 grains of W296. I blasted 100 rounds of the 250's and 50 of the 300's. I had a lot of fun! I like shooting light loads too, but the heavy ones are a blast (no pun intended).

You are right, SAAMI for 45 Colt is 14,000 PSI.

SAAMI for 45 Colt (for heavy built guns such as Rugers and T/C) is 25,000 CUP.

I think you need a 5 shot conversion in 45 Colt if you want to shoot at those pressures. The only thing I can add is that I remember seeing something about a guy who used Unique instead of 2400 in 44 mag loads. This was a massive overload and I dont know how he got that much Unique in the cases. His first shot blew the cylinder and top strap off a M29 S&W. Then he proceeded to fire 3 shots in a Ruger Superblackhawk. It bulged the cylinder tying up the gun or he would have fired more. This guy blamed a gunwriter for the data. Concerning pressures, my brother borrowed some ammo boxes from me for a range trip. The guy he was with blew up a brand new M19 S&W on the first shot. The gun went to pieces leaving only the grip frame. When I got the boxes back from my brother I found a partial cylinder in one of them. I keep it on the loading bench shelf right in front of me when loading to remind me to be careful.

There isn't any SAAMI spec for high-pressure .45 Colt loads.

Some of the powder & bullet manufacturers have recognized that 30,000CUP-level loads in the .45 colt don't hurt the new model Ruger Blackhawks (NOT the new small-framed Vaqueros).

Some opinions have been voiced in the gun press regarding the Smiths in .45 Colt, and also the Redhawks. In the absence of published data, those remain... opinions.

Stray off the beaten path with regards to published load data, and you are on your own.....

Skligmund
Yes I've seen a nice BH 357 Ruger blown apart. Guy brought it to Gun/Hunter safety class. He didn't know how it happen but used it to show it can happen in any Firearm!! Yes the 45 LC was pushed to 60,000 psi by Dick Casull in developement of the 454 Casull ! That was in a special revolver as well. Really 25000-30000 psi for the 45LC is a hot load only to be used in Rugers and '92's. Paco Kelly over on Sixgun. He's done alot of research with pressure data -I've used some of his reload data as well and it's good! But like I said earlier 1000-1200 FPS loads in the 45LC will do just about anything you want to do. Same goes for the 44 Mag.

My guess would be safety. Your vehicle has a maximum rpm range, most cars and trucks even have tachs in them anymore, why do you suppose they put a red line there. One difference being, when Old Buford blows up it's only money.

I agree, safety is first. I also agree that a heavier bullet is better than a light bullet in terms of bear stoppage (which is safer than not bear stoppage). I also agree that it takes more energy to move a heavier bullet to a desired velocity. I also agree that it more often than not requires a higher pressure to send that heavy bullet the same speed as a lighter bullets.

My point is this:

1. I own a Ruger Bisley for more than one reason
a. I can afford it
b. The gun fits me well, the hammer is in the correct place, and not so bloody high like a Freedom Arms
c. It shoots 45 Colt

2. The Ruger Bisley does not come in 454 Casull. 480 Ruger or 500 S&W

3. I hate (I emphisize hate) double action revolvers, I don't find them astheticly pleasing, nor fun to shoot. OLD smiths are an exception.

4. When I get a custom cylinder made (when funds permit), I will have the ability to load rounds that are equivilent, or even better, than 454 Casull of the same maximum length.


Then again, when my head gets chewed off, it is only my life....

$20 says it was a light charge of slow burning powder that blew it up (I can blow up guns all day using 4 grains of W296 in a 45 colt case, it is called an explosion, not a rapid burn att that point).

As I've said before, any load is safe in any gun - until you pull the trigger. It's what happens afterwards that takes things downhill.

SOME loads let you pull the trigger more than once. I tend to like the ones that let me pull it all I want.

There's a lesson in there somewhere.

OK.

BTW, I'm loading to 1.3 grains over maximum according to Hornady behind my 300 grain XTP-Mag, I think I'll bump it up to 2.0 grains, and most likely end up around 3.0 grains over before I decide it isn't wiorth the money for plinking rounds. (Hodgdon's max load with W296: 21.7 grains @ 1300 FPS) That would equal roughly 24-25 grains of W296. This should be well within structural capacity of the brass and the cylinder. I know I could go higher, but I've never shot very heavy loads out of my specific revolver, only out of somebody else's Bisley.

The XTP is my plinking round, I have yet to work up loads with the BTB lead that I have, for my bear rounds.

Pardon me sir, but if you plan to go almost four grains over book maximum for a plinking load, I am glad you shoot several thousand miles away from me.

What you are doing is just plain stupid. You may take offense at that, but if you continue on the course you've started, you will repeat WILL have an accident. I sincerely hope you reconsider.

Well, considering I use up most of the case capacity, and I visually check all my loads between processes, and throw away any component tht does not pass my inspection, I see it very unlikely that I will have an accident, or an incident.

There is NO chance of a double charge, as it would spill out the case. At that, if I did manage to load 296 to fill the case to the bottom of the bullet, I highly doubt I would have any issues. I'm working up my loads still, haven't had any issues as of yet, and if I did have failure of the gun (as it has been shown time and time again the the brass can take it), it would be of the bulged cylinder failure style, as it would be a simple overpressure of the gun, and not an explosive discharge causing the cylinder to catastophicly fail.

As such, my next investment will be a full length, 5 shot cylinder (requiring machining of the forcing cone).

I would like to point out that the 45 colt can do anything the 454 can do as long as heavy bullets are used. By the time you make the COL the same as 454, powder capacity is the same with the same bullet (assuming a change in the crimp position to allow fo the shorter brass). 454 only has advantages with lighter bullets (I consider anything under 340 grain lighter).



Rocky, not to offend for offence sake, but I'm glad you are not within several thousand miles from me. I take offence to people who think they know about something that they haven't had experience with and attempt to tell me I don't know what I'm doing. If I was loading for 300 RUM, I wouldn;t have the first clue about what worked and didn't I'd have to learn all over again. Believe me when I say that I wouldn't deviate from book loading until I KNEW the workings of every aspect behind it, and KNEW what would be effected with every change I make.

No, I will not have any problems. I will accept any consiquences I may get from actually learning something by actually trying it (stresses on my cylinder that I can and will detect with NDI testing). The reason I use "heavy" loads for plinking is that I don't feel they are heavy. If I shot out of a standard Blackhawk grip, maybe they would feel a bit heavier, but the Bisley grip is wonderful.

I will not, repeat, WILL NOT have an accident. I will not ALLOW an accident to occur. You may not believe it, but the scatiest thing to me is a blown up gun. I make it my number one priority to have that NOT happen. Unfortuante you don't see that.

Also, 300 grains is light. When I load 330+ grain bullets, I probably won't be able to fit that much powder behind it, but the recoil will be heavier. My purpose with plinking bullets is to allow me to use the heavy loads when needed, and have proficiency at doing it. What good is shooting cowboy loads all day long, then expect to shoot a wrist breaking bear load well?

Not trying to offend, either. But I have to ask how you can devine the future and "know" you aren't going to burst a cylinder? Measuring cylinder wall thickness does nothing to reveal a crystalline abnormality, microscopic crack or stress fracture.

Worse, you post practices and procedures on a public board where novice reloaders gather "knowledge" from "experts." You think four grains over published maximums is perfectly fine in your gun. They have an Italian import and reason that if four are safe, five or six more grains should be just ducky.

Oh, by the way, I've been reloading for 50 years, and my writing is scrutinized by editors even more experienced than that. I do know what I'm doing - and saying. You seem intelligent, but your decisions are foolhardy, illogical and hubritic in the extreme.

Exactly. i was reading an article a guy wrote (I might be able to find it) who shoots 45 colt rated at 60,000 PSI out of his new 1894 and 1892's (old ones don't hold up as he explains in his experiences) . He says he used these loads out of a Ruger also. Now, I don't know where he got his pressure numbers, so I find it somewhat questionable, but I also find it reasonable. I was guessing an 80,000 PSI failure.

Another topic question.

Anybody actually blow up (not crack) a Ruger cylinder loading too much? I'm not talking about 5 grains of 296 stupid (explosive...) or mixing powders, but just packing more powder. I've heard of cracking the cylinder by double charging something like Bullseye or Unique, but never a catostrophic failure such as the Colt Anaconda in another post..


Call John Linebaugh and ask him about blowing up Rugers and he can enlighten you, as years ago he did just that in testing to find out what the six shot Blackhawks in 45 colt could stand and his recomendation has been that they have cylinders 80% as thick as the 44's therefore are only safe over time loaded to 80% of the pressure of the 44 mag. The metal stretches in the cylinder chamber when fired and contracts after the pressure subsides,shoot too much pressure enough times and eventualy metal fatigue wil become a facter and a blow up can occur. A 45 at 80% pressure of a 44 is in my opion is higher on the food chain than a 44 and there is no increase in game taking ability when shooting a higher pressure load inorder to gain another 100 fps.What is the gain and is it worth the risk?
If interested PM me and I will give you John's phone number.

Nah, I'm good.

You'd be amazed at what Ultrasonic, Eddy current and Dye Pen testing can detect.

I've found that 23.5 grains is about all I need behind the 300 XTP, cause all more does is make bigger fire out the muzzle, with little or no gain in velocity. If I had the 7.5" bbl, I might go further, but I don't think the 7.5" comes in SS, so I would have to completely restart my work ups.

Here is an interesting story:

I loaded a bunch of 180 grain lead bullets behind 8.0, 9.0 and 10.0 grains of Unique (Loading book says use 8.5 for starting, and 9.5 as max, figured these would be good testing loads for finding a cheap cheap plinking load. Turns out that all 3 loads didn't shoot worth a hoot, about 6" low at 25 feet. Also, they were very inconsistant. I decided at that point that I needed to get rid of all my 180 grain bullets and all my Unique. I looked for the hottest load in the book I could find (was 12.0 grains behind a 185 grain bullet in the weak gun section). I was going to load them at 13.0 grains and load all 350 bullets I had left, but decided to stay with 12.5 grains because I had little experience with Unique. As it turns out, 80% of the bullets from the standard 9.0 grain load in the book, split the case. I threw away about 40 pieces of brass trying to see if I could remedy the situation. I believe from this experience, that if I am to load with 9.0 grains of Unique behind a light bullet, that it need polyester filler to keep the powder near the primer. I figured this because it would only shoot well if I aimed up in the air at like 20 degrees (way into the swamp). This was never brought up in any book I've ever read, nor was it mentioned in the reloading manual I got the info from.

However, the loads listed over max (12.5 grains) shot perfect, straight and consistant. I've decided to keep the Unique and 180 grain bullets, and load them at 12.5 grains. They shoot well out of the 1894 16" and the 5.5" Bisley.

Moral: So just following the book isn't always the best answer, and goes to show that there is a lot to be learned. I always like to learn, thats why I do what I do, but I hope that I stress enough that what I'm doing should only be attempted by somebody who is willing to attempt the theoretical dangerous, and be willing to accept what happens. I don't want people doing what I do, I'm just trying to get all the facts I can.

I do take you guys seriously (I may not sound like it) but I also feel that most people are too conservative in what is considered 'safe'. I think it was more dangerous using a book load than using my higher pressure loads.

[Quote] by Skligmund
You'd be amazed at what Ultrasonic, Eddy current and Dye Pen testing can detect. [Quote]

I don't think I would be amazed at what they can detect, I am very familar with there use in my line of work, now you may be amazed at what they won't detect and metal fatigue is one.You would have to already have cracked the cylinder inorder for a detection to be made, and a crack is after the fact of damage being done. Also if you crack a cylinder during a firing session and not know it could be catistropic, The 80% rule has seemed to work well for many years
For what it is worth how are you going to know if metal fatigure has set in until you have destroyed your gun? Answer you won't........

Unless of course the expansion of the cylinder due to pressure (which happens every shot, even though it isn't much) exceeds the elastic limit of the metal in its current state (weather it is fatigued or not) the cylinder will have a permanent deformation, which at the point of the limit, is noticable. Usually this creates a situation where the cylinder will no longer rotate, or the gun locks up. If this does not happen, I am one to notice these types of flaws (as I look for them every time I load and reload the gun, and examine my brass and chambers very closely). Of course, if the cylinder does not reach the elastic limit of the metal (weather or not it has crystalized), no damage will occur (unless an unsafe explosion caused by a light load of slow burning powder happens), nor excessive metal fatigue. I figure you know how steel works since you are versed in the methods of NDI testing.

If my cylinders were made from aluminum, I would be afraid to shoot a gun more than 6 times, as aluminum work hardens very quickly (depending on what kind of alloy it is) and would crack and fail. However, all non explosive failures of cylinders I have ever seen or heard of did not start with a crack, but a bulge and mistiming of the cylinder, or the brass would actually fuse to the cylinder, and lock up the gun. I think it would be a matalergical anomaly if my cylinder would fail in a manner that would injure me. I also can take the fact that I may ruin my gun doing this, but I find that it is improbable.

[Quote] by Skligmund
Unless of course the expansion of the cylinder due to pressure (which happens every shot, even though it isn't much) exceeds the elastic limit of the metal in its current state (weather it is fatigued or not) the cylinder will have a permanent deformation, which at the point of the limit, is noticable. Usually this creates a situation where the cylinder will no longer rotate, or the gun locks up. If this does not happen, I am one to notice these types of flaws (as I look for them every time I load and reload the gun, and examine my brass and chambers very closely). Of course, if the cylinder does not reach the elastic limit of the metal (weather or not it has crystalized), no damage will occur (unless an unsafe explosion caused by a light load of slow burning powder happens), nor excessive metal fatigue. I figure you know how steel works since you are versed in the methods of NDI testing.[Quote]

You are making an incorrect assumption in that there will always be a bulgle in the cylinder befores a catistropic failure occurs. True there could be a bulge first, but there does not have to be when dealing with metal fatigue and if were as experienced as you claim to be you woulkd know this and would also know that cutting the safety factor down to dangerous levels is not wise.I have made my living with metals for over 35 years and while many times there are warning signs of failure, many times there are not. This is why safety factors are built into all steel construction whether it be guns or bridbes or what ever. No two steels of the same grade are of the same strenght,to meet the tensil requirements of any grade they are all supposed to meet the minimum requirements,but one may be dramaticly stronger than another,what this means is just because someone got away with useing one specimen at or above the accepted limits, does not mean that another specimen could be expected to do the same.

If you want to take these chance by all means be my guest,but your rational than you can do so with out consequences ifis flawed.
Just remember that a blow up may or may not leave you seriously injured.How does the reward justify the risk?
If you think that you are gaining any game taking ability by running a 45 colt at 454 pressures then get a 5 shot 45 colt and play as much as you want safely.

My intention is to get a 5 shot cylinder. As the questionably high pressure loads that I have seen shot through a 6 shot cylinder, the steel was blued, and the cylinder was fluted. My steel is Stainless, and it is unfluted. I'm not near the pressures they were, as I see no reason to go THAT high. I'm also not after taking game. I'm after removing a bear's ability to continue with an attack that it has started on me. At that point, I'll attempt to defeat the more immediate threat.

I also mentioned that I can accept the consiquences, I know the theoretical risk is higher than lower loadings, but I'm using MY judgement and saying the risk is negligable.

If I blow up and die, don't worry, it is nobody's fault but mine. I would hope each and every one of you feels the same about yourselves. If you buy a factory ammo, and it explodes because they had a bad run of powder, I think it is the purchaser's fault, cause he could have reloaded the bullet himself and had it not happen. I'm all for personal responsability, and I treat me loading bullets with that respect.

Mr. Casull loaded 45 Colt to obscene pressures, I wonder how many people called him nuts and crazy. He went way higher than I'll ever go, and I'm getting flak...

[quote] by Sklgmund
Mr. Casull loaded 45 Colt to obscene pressures, I wonder how many people called him nuts and crazy. He went way higher than I'll ever go, and I'm getting flak...[Quote]

Yea, and he blow up a few in the proccess at least he was smart enough not to hold them in his hands when testing( fired remotely held in a fixture). Also he was and is a gun builder and he figured out how to build them safe, which is with a 5 shooter. The reason that people are giving you flak is because the testing has allready been done and what is safe and what is not is known, experimentation is not needed in order to find out, it has already been done.........

[Quote] by Skligmund
If you buy a factory ammo, and it explodes because they had a bad run of powder, I think it is the purchaser's fault, cause he could have reloaded the bullet himself and had it not happen. [Quote]


The reloader would be more likely to be injured from a bad lot of powder than with a factory load,because each lot of powder that the factory uses is tested for burn rate ( with presure testing equipment) and the load is adjusted accordingly. This is why loading on the raggged edge is not a wise practice, the handloader should work up each time he aquires a different batch of the same powder

There is nothing wrong with loading 45 Colt + P loads as long as one stays with in the accepted pressure limits and the 80% rule is a proven and safe rule.Loading within 80% of the pressure of a 44 mag puts the 45 colt higher on the food chain than the 44 mag.A 45 colt loaded within these perameters will shoot completely through (and exit ) a 1000 pound Bison and would certain change a Bears eating habits with 300 to 325 grain bullets. This load is extremely effective.

I would disagree with 300 or 325 grain being enough for bear. I prefer about 360, but that is preference I suppose.

O.K. With your logic of 80%:

SPEER #11 shows 44 Mag SAAMI pressure at 43,500 CUP. 80% of that is 34,800 CUP.
Then the new 44 Mag SAAMI spec is 40,000 CUP, which is 32,000 CUP for 45 Colt.

Current listed max for 45 Colt +P is 25,000 CUP. (From handloads.com, the only place I can find a listed number that is claimed as SAAMI. SAAMI does acknowledge +P loads according to their website, but doesn't freely divulge the information)

This means with the 80% rule, pressures are exceeding the only known +P pressure number I can find in CUP. You are loading unsafe rounds my friend.

Where do these numbers come from? They sure as heck don't make any rational sense to me.

Of course I would have a better understanding of all things if they would just rate everything in PSI, and skip this 3 or 4 caliber use of CUP crap.

This is why I am doing what I'm doing. This information is hard to come by, and anybody who has it, won't give it up. Which brings me back to why I load like I do. Knowledge. Just cause I can load super hot, doesn't mean I will.

[Quote] by Skilgmund
This means with the 80% rule, pressures are exceeding the only known +P pressure number I can find in CUP. You are loading unsafe rounds my friend.

Where do these numbers come from? They sure as heck don't make any rational sense to me.[Quote]

07-16-06
[Quote] by jwp475
Call John Linebaugh and ask him about blowing up Rugers and he can enlighten you, as years ago he did just that in testing to find out what the six shot Blackhawks in 45 colt could stand and his recomendation has been that they have cylinders 80% as thick as the 44's therefore are only safe over time loaded to 80% of the pressure of the 44 mag.[Quote]

Again..... there is no SAAMI spec for "+P" .45 colt loadings! I don't care what you read on the internet.... such a thing doesn't exist.

Let's revisit.....

1. There's a bunch of published opinions on what the .45 Colt can be loaded to in various guns.

2. Several published sources go up to the 30,000CUP range (example, Hodgdon #26 data manual).

3. If you want to go over that, do it somewhere else. Don't drive into brick walls while I'm on the road, either, please.....

4. Last.... if you want to argue over what it takes to kill a bear, please read the hundreds of postings that we already have on this topic, before you give your opinion on doing something of this nature. You might consider asking someone who's done it what they think of the proposition, as well.

Think this one has gone on long enough.