Author Topic: 45 Long Colt hunting loads (Read 1939 times)

Keith L · « **on:** December 28, 2006, 05:17:30 AM »

A couple years ago I bought a 10 inch 45LC barrel, and have been playing with it using cowboy action type loads like I shoot in my Vaquero. I shot it again yesterday, and it does a good job at the indoor range (25 yards) making me think I may want to work up a good hunting load for this barrel. Anyone have a good load for whitetail at under 75 yards? I have a two power Burris scope mounted on the barrel, and I like the way it handles.

spinafish · « **Reply #1 on:** December 28, 2006, 05:55:34 AM »

Keith, My 14" barrel really liked the Speer Gold Dot 250 grainer with 19 gr. H-110 pushing it along. Loads for that bullet are available at Speer's websitehttp://www.speer-bullets.com/pdf/ReloadingSupplementalDATA/45coltgd.pdf
I found several 300 grain loads that shot well also, but recoil was very stiff..and I don't believe all that bullet weight was necessary; especially for whitetails..

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #2 on:** December 28, 2006, 06:39:07 AM »

Here are 2 loads that work great for me.

45 Colt 240 gr. Hornady IMR4227 23.0 gr. WLP 1.655
45 Colt 300 gr. Hard Cast IMR4227 18.5 gr. WLP 1.655

mjbgalt · « **Reply #3 on:** December 28, 2006, 08:55:43 AM »

my .45 colt liked 18.5 grains of 2400 with a hornaday xtp in the 240 grain size.

-Matt

Lone Star · « **Reply #4 on:** December 28, 2006, 08:59:20 AM »

I assume that you have the fully-rifled barrel rather than the .45/.410 choked barrel. I like 16 grains of BlueDot over 240 and 250 XTPs (near-max Sierra data for around 1200 fps). Accuracy is good, recoil is relatively mild compared to other powders, and the 250 bullets are not over-driven for their design, enhancing penetration. I does produce some muzzle flash, but no worse than H110/W296.

I used to load my 10" T/C with the 250XTPs at 1450 fps, but accuracy was no better, recoil was very stiff, and the bullets killed no better. 1200 fps is flat enough and powerful enough for 75 yard shooting.

.

Keith L · « **Reply #5 on:** December 29, 2006, 06:17:09 AM »

Thanks Guys. This should be a place to start on getting a favorite load.

Yes Lone Star, it is a fully rifled barrel, no .410. It is a bull barrel with a soldered on front sight, so it is no spring chicken, but looked unfired when I got it.

Again, thanks!!

Sverre A. · « **Reply #6 on:** December 29, 2006, 08:29:43 AM »

300 gr. XTP H110/21 gr.

325 gr. Mimek Hard Cast w/gas. H110/21 gr

454-hunter · « **Reply #7 on:** January 16, 2007, 07:03:47 PM »

Edited by poster so as no more misconceptions can take place I just want to get along around here I am a very happy go lucky guy unless you hit me in the face with your fist and then I just come unglued .

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 17, 2007, 01:33:20 AM »

Quote from: 454-hunter on January 16, 2007, 07:03:47 PM

Well, to my knowledge I have never seen a load for the 45 LOng colt.. But I do beleive many loads for the 45 colt do exist thet may be the reason you cant find any good loads you are looking for a caliber that does not exist. It is actually a incorrect name attached to a cartridge by military men when they were given a new 45 colt round that was longer and they liked it better they thus dubbed it the "LONG COLT" so that supply sergeants etc.. would get the new rounds and not the shorter type.

Stan(454-hunter)

Thanks for the history lesson, but I think you and everyone else knew what he meant. A lot of people refer to the 45 Colt as the 45 Long Colt.

slave · « **Reply #9 on:** January 17, 2007, 01:45:25 AM »

Redhawk,

Are those .45LC loads you posted any good out of one of your 460's.

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #10 on:** January 17, 2007, 01:57:07 AM »

slave, they worked very well. They shoot to a different point of impact than the 454 Casull's and the 460 Mags. But the groups were very tight.

slave · « **Reply #11 on:** January 17, 2007, 03:07:43 AM »

Lawful Larry · « **Reply #12 on:** January 18, 2007, 04:09:41 AM »

Quote from: Keith L on December 29, 2006, 06:17:09 AM

Thanks Guys. This should be a place to start on getting a favorite load.

Yes Lone Star, it is a fully rifled barrel, no .410. It is a bull barrel with a soldered on front sight, so it is no spring chicken, but looked unfired when I got it.

Again, thanks!!

I got my hands on a straight .45 Colt barrel. It is not like yours, a bull barrel, but is one of the earlier octogonal barels. My question is " Is this barrel safe to shoot the heavier Colt loads?" Are there any restrictions on these barrels? Can I load my rounds using the TC load section?

Thanks.

RonF · « **Reply #13 on:** January 18, 2007, 09:07:23 AM »

Those barrels are very thin where the dovetail for the forend screw is cut. In mine, you can actually see a little difference in light reflection in the bore at that point. I don't think I would want to fire max loads in it, but I have shot some heavier than normal ones. Due to its being so light, I reached my recoil tolerance threshold before I got near max loads. I don't have that problem at all with the bull .45 Colt (or with my 14" .35 Rem or .30-40 Krag). The light barrels really make a difference in felt recoil, at least for me.

RonF

Lawful Larry · « **Reply #14 on:** January 18, 2007, 09:18:15 AM »

Quote from: RonF on January 18, 2007, 09:07:23 AM

Those barrels are very thin where the dovetail for the forend screw is cut. In mine, you can actually see a little difference in light reflection in the bore at that point. I don't think I would want to fire max loads in it, but I have shot some heavier than normal ones. Due to its being so light, I reached my recoil tolerance threshold before I got near max loads. I don't have that problem at all with the bull .45 Colt (or with my 14" .35 Rem or .30-40 Krag). The light barrels really make a difference in felt recoil, at least for me.

RonF

Hey Ron,
I tend to agree with you. I think I will use this barrel for my Unique plinking loads. I have other hogs that can handle the heavy stuff. It is a nice looking barrel though. Maybe I will treat it like my S&W Mountain gun. that should take care of that problem.

Thought I would include a picture of the beauty for those that have never seen one:

Keith L · « **Reply #15 on:** January 18, 2007, 10:00:38 AM »

Quote from: 454-hunter on January 16, 2007, 07:03:47 PM

Well, to my knowledge I have never seen a load for the 45 LOng colt.. But I do beleive many loads for the 45 colt do exist thet may be the reason you cant find any good loads you are looking for a caliber that does not exist. It is actually a incorrect name attached to a cartridge by military men when they were given a new 45 colt round that was longer and they liked it better they thus dubbed it the "LONG COLT" so that supply sergeants etc.. would get the new rounds and not the shorter type.

Stan(454-hunter)

Thanks for the comment. As to a load that doesn't exist, the boxes that my ammo came in when new are marked either 45LC or 45 Long Colt, all the dies I have came in boxes marked 45 Long Colt, and my new Cabelas shooting catalog that came yesterday calls all the dies in that chambering that I found 45 Long Colt, so apparently I am not the only one who got it wrong.

I was wondering if there was a "Short Colt" or a "Standard Colt" because I had never seen one. You answered my question: one did occur at a point in time, but unlike 38 special and 357 mag it no longer exists.

Thanks

Keith L · « **Reply #16 on:** January 18, 2007, 10:02:43 AM »

Quote from: Lawful Larry on January 18, 2007, 09:18:15 AM

Quote from: RonF on January 18, 2007, 09:07:23 AM
Those barrels are very thin where the dovetail for the forend screw is cut. In mine, you can actually see a little difference in light reflection in the bore at that point. I don't think I would want to fire max loads in it, but I have shot some heavier than normal ones. Due to its being so light, I reached my recoil tolerance threshold before I got near max loads. I don't have that problem at all with the bull .45 Colt (or with my 14" .35 Rem or .30-40 Krag). The light barrels really make a difference in felt recoil, at least for me.

RonF

Hey Ron,
I tend to agree with you. I think I will use this barrel for my Unique plinking loads. I have other hogs that can handle the heavy stuff. It is a nice looking barrel though. Maybe I will treat it like my S&W Mountain gun. that should take care of that problem.

Thought I would include a picture of the beauty for those that have never seen one:

That is a great looking combo that octagon barrel with that particular forarm. I just may have to start looking for one!

454-hunter · « **Reply #17 on:** January 23, 2007, 04:42:30 PM »

Hey, Redhawk1 I was just trying to be witty not arogant or mean I hope yours was also not mean spirited.
I will simply say Keith L and Redhawk 1 sorry for any inconvenience. I will be very short and concise from now on.

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #18 on:** January 24, 2007, 02:12:20 AM »

454-hunter, that is the thing about posting, no one really knows if someone is being a smart guy or is actually serious. I may interpret your post as you are coming across as arrogant and someone else may think it was meant as just being informative.

Keith L · « **Reply #19 on:** January 24, 2007, 02:56:43 AM »

And I appreciated the history lesson. Apparently the name stuck because it is still in use. Thanks.

neald · « **Reply #20 on:** January 24, 2007, 03:49:10 AM »

454,

I read your post and I also thought you came across as a little arrogant. But I try to remember how my writting comes across at times.
Before I retired ( or retarted,I can't remeber which is which annymore) , I was a capt on the fire dept and I had to write a lot of memos to people, And since I hated to write those things I would be very short and crisp. It got me into hot water several times as people took offence to what I wrote, when no offense was ment at all.
Please do not be to short on your post as that will only offend people so much easier.
If you write like you speak people can not hear the inflection in your voice and it come across as being arrogant .flip or any number of other bad things.
Good Luck
Neal
PS I hope that this does not come across as arrogant.

Lawful Larry · « **Reply #21 on:** January 24, 2007, 07:19:18 AM »

Why you arrogant...

Just kidding Neal. I too have taken offense when none was warranted at different times. It can be hard to communicate over this dang internet. What I do now is sit back and wait for additional info if there is some to come. I guess I am getting too old, turns the big "60" next month. Sometimes I guess we all get tunnel vision when it comes to our personal thoughts. I am guilty of it for sure, as are many of our pards.

Like the great well known Los Angeles philosopher once said: "Can't we all get along?"

ottawa rogue · « **Reply #22 on:** January 24, 2007, 04:38:46 PM »

Hey guys, just to throw a wrench in the whole "Long" colt thing, Paco Kelly has a picture of a box of .45 short colt loads from around 1900 or so.....maybe there was a long colt after all

EDIT...... sorry, i thought he had a picture up at one time. but he does talk about the .45 colt shorts here
http://www.leverguns.com/articles/paco/45coltlevergun.htm

chiefs50 · « **Reply #23 on:** April 17, 2008, 05:13:21 AM »

I got my hands on a straight .45 Colt barrel. It is not like yours, a bull barrel, but is one of the earlier octogonal barels. My question is " Is this barrel safe to shoot the heavier Colt loads?" Are there any restrictions on these barrels? Can I load my rounds using the TC load section?

Thanks.
[/quote]

I have one of these .45 Colt, octagonal barrels ( a T2, I think ). Several posters on this forum have advised against using the heavy, P+ loads in this barrel, citing the thinness of the barrel. The only place I have seen such a concern expressed is on this forum. Does anyone have any hard information on which to base this concern.? Ammo manufacturers who produce the heavy .45 Colt loads usually provide the following caution- or words to the same effect, "These loads are safe in all large frame Ruger revolvers, TC Contender, Colt Anaconda, and Freedom Arms firearms. These loads are safe in all modern Model 1892 leverguns as well as all Winchester & Marlin 1894's. DO NOT USE IN ANY OTHER FIREARM. THESE ARE NOT STANDARD PRESSURE CARTRIDGES! One would think that these manufacturers certainly would not put such a statement in print if there was a safety concern with the T2 type barrel. Common sense tells me that TC would most certainly have issued a product advisory warning if this was a concern. Looking at this barrel from the muzzle end, it does look alarmingly thin but there is plenty of metal at the breech/chamber, where it really counts. There are a lot of knowledgeable folks here - what say you regarding this issue?

mike

Lone Star · « **Reply #24 on:** April 17, 2008, 04:14:07 PM »

Wow, well over a year since the last post on this thread! Note that sometimes we have to apply common sense when a safety issue is involved, and even if a manufacturer does not specifically state that a load is not safe, if we believe there is potential for an accident, why on earth would we want to risk it? I have owned an octagon .45LC for 25 years, and I would not fire top Ruger-level loads in it. Is it unsafe? I'm not certain -- but I have fired loads in the lower Ruger-level range and recoil was brutal. The barrel weighs almost nothing and that lack of weight - particularly with wood stocks - stings badly. I have a full bull .45LC that I use for Ruger-level loads, and even with a scope and rubber it still recoils pretty heavy with 300-grain bullets.

BTW, my Hornady #3 Manual lists over 100 loads for the .45 LONG COLT.

.

chiefs50 · « **Reply #25 on:** April 17, 2008, 05:20:27 PM »

Thanks for the reply Lone Star. I understand the recoil factor with the light barrel and probably won't shoot max loads in it since I also have a 14" bull in the same caliber, but my question remains. I'm no expert so I can't claim there is no safety issue but is anyone relying on anything more substantial that a hunch that it might be unsafe to shoot the heavy loads in this particular barrel? Has anyone ever queried TC regarding this issue? I thought someone might have and decided to check here before contacting them.

Thanks again,

Mike

RonF · « **Reply #26 on:** April 18, 2008, 04:13:10 AM »

In 1991, Loadbooks USA published "The Complete Reloading Manual for the Thompson/Center Contender." It was a compilation of data from the major bullet manufacturers and publishers of reloading manuals. For the .45 Colt, data from Hornady, Nosler, Sierra, Speer, Lyman, RCBS and Hodgdon are included, all of which except Nosler include heavier than normal .45 Colt loads. None of them make any distinction between octagon and bull barrels. I believe the octagon barrels were still being manufactured in .45 Colt at that time, but I'm not sure. None of this is directly from T/C, of course, but it is a bit hard to imagine all these bullet and powder companies generating this data without any interaction with T/C regarding what is appropriate. On the other hand, I do seem to recall reading something from T/C years ago about straight walled pistol cases. Their recommendation, as I recall, was just to be happy with the increased velocity resulting from longer barrels and the lack of a cylinder/barrel gap. Of course, that was when fast powders were more in vogue and before the Contender, which was conceived as a light weight field pistol, got grips and bull barrels which let it handle recoil. And, unfortunately, I can't find that article or letter, which ever it was.

I suspect the octagon barrels will handle published .45 Colt loads, but for me, the word brutal, which someone used to describe the recoil, is an understatement.

RonF

chiefs50 · « **Reply #27 on:** April 18, 2008, 05:01:16 PM »

RonF; Thanks for the informative answer. That's the kind of information I was looking for. I too doubt that, in this litigious society, ammunition manufacturers would fail to note an exception for the octagonal barrel if warranted. Be that as it may, I will probably hand load something like the 1200 fps load Lone Star mentioned in his post.

mike