Way back in the dark ages when men were 'real men', the king of handgun cartridges was the 45 Colt. It was hands down the most effective chambering a guy could carry on his hip. Even the military agreed, to the point of adopting the .45acp in the 1911 pistol. The 45acp was designed to match the performance of the 45 Colt.
A little comparison.
45 Colt - 5-1/2" barrel, 240gr, 900 f/s, 432 ft-lbs
45acp - 5" barrel, 240gr, 900 f/s, 432 ft-lbs
45acp - 5" barrel, 230gr, 900 f/s, 414 ft-lbs
So why would I buy a revolver chambered for the 44 special? Other than I can get it in a frame small enough for me to shoot double action with one hand, it closely matches the performance of those guys above.
44 special - 6-1/2" barrel, 240gr, 900 f/s, 432 ft-lbs.
Mine is of the 4" barrel persuasion because I have no intention of carrying it concealed. I have a 3" barreled 45acp for that, and it holds 7+1 instead of 5 and is easier for me to conceal than a revolver. If I can ever get the wife to consider carrying, this revolver will fit in a purse, even with the 4" barrel. Besides " a pistol should never have a slide" according to the Boss.
So why not a small frames .357Mag you ask?
357Mag - 6" barrel, 125gr, 1500 f/s, 624 ft-lbs
That looks really good doesn't it compared to the others above. I happen to own a 357Mag with a 6" barrel that's set up for hunting. I can't shoot it one handed and double action so it's not useful as a home defense gun. I've loaded 357 cartridges like that 125gr load above, and I believe, but not yet proven, that you won't come close to that velocity from a 2" barreled revolver. In smaller framed revolvers, that I can shoot one handed, I've never seen one with anything but a 2" barrel.
Unless proven differently, I think the old 44 special in a small, short barreled revolver is superior to the 357Mag in the same sized revolver. It even has less felt recoil.
--------------------
The above are Max loads from an old Sierra reloading manual.
-------------------
My 357Mag hunting load is;
357Mag - 6" barrel, 158gr, 1250 f/s, 548 ft-lbs (chronographed)
That's enough to cleanly take a deer broad side at about 120 yards, and penetrate from shoulder to butt at 20 yards. Yep, I've done both.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment