Here's the scoop. I am looking at the 7.5" RH in 45 colt and the 7.5" SRH in 454. I like the flexibility of the 454, but I prefer the looks of the 45. I know you can stoke up the colt some, but what can the colt case handle without worry (I've seen published numbers, but I am curious about actual experiences with actual revolvers and chronys). How is case life for heavy colt loads? TIA

I've reloaded Win 45 colt cases many times with hot loads. I've been useing the same brass since 86'. I was playing with 405gn cast and Bluedot in my 4 5/8" Blackhawk and got abit carried away. The cylinder developed a hairline crack. The brass had to be pounded out of the cylinder but was still in fine shape. I now have a Bisley cylinder on the Blackhawk and try to keep my loads halfway in the sane area. I wouldn't be worried about the strength of the brass. What I would be worried about is the throats on the 45 Redhawk. I had a 5.5" 45colt Redhawk and it wouldn't chamber a loaded round with a 300XTP as the throats were WAY TOO SMALL. I believe that the 45 Redhawk could handle hot loads easily, just make sure that the throats are okay, or just plan on sending it out to a smith to have them opened up to .4525 I put a Houge Monogrip on my Redhawk and liked the grip, but ended up selling the gun after I bought my Raging Bull.

Good colt brass can handle loads of the same pressure as the 454. You could even cut down 454 brass, but that really isn't needed.

What you should consider is how comfortable the guns are to shoot. I know the SRH is bashed as being big, ugly and heavy, but that is only partly true. The SRH is actually lighter than the RH, and I find the SRH grip is much more comfortable when shooting heavy loads.

The 454 can be loaded to do anything the 45 can do, and some things it can't do. If you really are interested in heavy loads, the 454 is a better choice. Much better to use a more powerful round loaded to spec levels, than trying to push a smaller case to do the same.

heres my take on it and remember its from someone who only shoots cast bullets. The .45 will shoot a 300 grain bullets at 1200fps or a little better with a good safety margin in a redhawk or blackhawk. In all the penetration tests weve done we have found that shooting them any faster is a waste and in most cases counterproductive to penetration. I personaly dont have much use for a .454 If i want more power then a .45 colt i go to a bigger bore like my .475 or .500 There I can push a 400-500 grains larger diameter bullet at the same 1200-1300fps. and beleive me contray to what some .454 fans will tell you a 400lfn .475 or .500 hits with more athority then a .45 bullet at any speed and the recoil is if anything just a little more and the muzzle blast if anything is a little less. Id much rather sit down at the bench with a .500 linebaugh the a .454 anyday. Only problem with the big bores is they cost more and some people dont want to lay out the money. If it were my money id buy the .45 and check the throats and put the difference in price between the .45 and .454 into an action job. Youd end up with a much nicer gun. Plus it wouldnt be so but ugly!

The brass isn't your concern, as has been mentioned. Dick Cassull (can't remember how to spell it!) did the development for the 454 starting swith .45 Colt brass. The brass held up, but the guns didn't.

Ruger went to a different metal in the SRH 454, so the standard Redhawk is not as strong, though it is reputed to be stout.

For me, personally, the decision is made by the fact that the RH, along with the SBH is as big a sixgun as I want to pack on my body. The SRH moves itself out of the "practical" realm for me. It may not for everyone, but that's my stance and choice.

I'm far from an expert on the .45 Colt having just picked up a 6" Freedom Arms M83 in .454C/.45 Colt. But I'm a hell of an Investigator and can vouch that the Federal or Starline .45 Colt cases can take as much "fun" as you can take. Ross Seyfried has done a few articles on really turbocharging the .45 Colt in the Ruger Bisleys, FA's and other custom 5 shot cylinder guns. His experimentation has shown that the Federal cases will take all the pressure needed to fling 330 grain cast slugs to 1300+ fps. And take that pressure for many,many reloads.

I've used the same ten Starline cases 12 times now testing loads for my FA revolver. The primer pockets are tight,necks still tight,etc. Not pushing all my loads to the max but I'm in the 23000 to 30000 cup range.

I may never install my .454 cylinder, the .45 Colt gives me all the fun I need.

FN in MT

Many thanks for all the replies. One more candidate has popped up, however.

I handled a Ruger Bisley in 45 colt (7.5 in barrel) today and I was particularly impressed with how comfortable it felt. I do have some experience with the standard BH, any thoughts on the Bisley? Thanks again.

Paul H. wrote,

Quote:

---

I personally believe that it is a falacy that the SRH is too big to pack, as it is actually a few ounces lighter than a RH.

---

As quick check of Ruger's site lists the RH at 53 oz. in .44 mag and 52 oz. in .45 Colt, both with 7 1/2" barrels. They show the 454 SRH at 53 1/2 oz. in the same 7 1/2" barrel length. Thus, your "few ounces lighter than a RH" appears to be an error. http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAProdSpecsView?model=5505

Actually, I had in mind a (my) 5 1/2" RH .45 (48 oz.) which packs much more easily for me than the larger 454 SRH's which are minimally 5 1/2 oz. heavier. And I'd point out that I strove to make it clear that I was merely stating a personal choice. Carry whatever you feel comfortable with; you have my blessing.

I only have one Bisley, a SBH. I'm very much in the minority in that it is not comfortable with heavy recoil. Beats the heck outta my "off" hand's first two fingers.

There aren't many of us who don't care for the Bisley grip with hard kickers, but there are a few. Can you shoot the gun before you buy?

No can do on the pre-buy shoot.

Forgive me, but I guess I do not know what "SBH" means. I'm guessing Super Black Hawk? I was under the impression that the BH, the SBH, and the Bisley were all distinct models. The Bisley's grips frame seems a bit like the FA grip, and quite different than the BH or SBH.

Is a FA model 97 or 83 worth all the extra $?

Yes, SBH means "Super Blackhawk." Super Blackhawks are .44 magnum. Ruger apparently doesn't refer to the .44 Bisley as the Super Blackhawk Bisley. My error.



I'd buy a Freedom Arms in either configuration over the Ruger any day if I had the bucks available.



Hint, one FA owner (has about 9, I think) says to have the factory trigger job done.





(Edit: left out the "has" in the parentheses in the last sentence.)

The stock Bisley grip is more comfortable to shoot with heavy loads then the stock Blackhawk or SuperBlackhawk. I have a Blackhawk 45 colt with 4 5/8" bbl and have a Houge Monogrip on it. It really seems to handle the recoil well with very heavy loads. The short light Blackhawk is very comfortable to pack and with heavy bullets still packs a punch.

I just went and weighed mine it is 2lb 13oz.

"Is the FA M83 or M97 worth the extra bucks"?

There's a good topic of and by itself.

Shot a few M83's this past year and I was VERY impressed with the fit,ACCURACY, and tremendous strength built into the guns. I recently bought a 6" M83 and it has just amazed me with it's accuracy. It will literally shoot one hole groups at 25 yards. I shoot a lot of pistol and this gun just makes you appear to be better than you are.

I looked at the Ruger Bisleys as well but have NEVER been a Ruger fan. The fit and finish is non existent compared to the FA's. Then again the FA's at near $2K if fitted with any options SHOULD blow the $360 Ruger out of the water. But for the bucks, with a little tuning the Rugers are a heck of a hunting gun. they are all over the place. Find a Bisley owner and give one a try.

A Bisley with decent .45 Colt loads would be a great hunting gun.

FN in MT