Author Topic: using a 45LC in a 454 (Read 4839 times)

oregoncoyote · « **on:** November 24, 2009, 10:58:32 AM »

why does FA say that the 45LC should NOT be used in the 454?

some other companies have no problem with that. for example, ruger says in their catalog that's fine to shoot 45LC in their SRH 454.

isn't it like 38 in a 357? maybe not as accurate as the full-length load, but it's safe and ok to do.

what's the story please?

yooper77 · « **Reply #1 on:** November 24, 2009, 11:31:05 AM »

If you shoot 45 Colts out of a FA 83 454 Casull it will create a crud ring and quite possibly create a groove just ahead of the case mouth. Then when the longer 454 Casull is fired the case can flow into this groove and the case will be stuck. I have hear people buying FA 83 in 454 Casull that needed to thoroughly clean the cylinder before they were able to shoot the 454 Casull case, because of shooting the 45 Colt in it.

Plus you are dealing with higher pressure when people hand load for the 45 Colt for use in the model 83, and the 454 Casull is very high pressures and the 83 has very close tolerances, not like the other guys mass produced guns.

yooper77

oregoncoyote · « **Reply #2 on:** November 24, 2009, 11:43:14 AM »

hey yooper77,

so what you're saying is that it's exactly like firing 38s in a 357: its just a matter of crudding-up the cylinder, but if the loads are very hot it can also score the cylinder too.

so it isn't anything regarding safety, it's just a good idea.

seeing that no other firearm company requires it, and as long as one doesn't fire extreme LC loads, would ever it hurt anything? (in exchange for saving hundreds that an extra 45LC cylinder costs)

Graybeard · « **Reply #3 on:** November 24, 2009, 11:45:28 AM »

Tolerances. It all about tolerances. Ruger and other makes have loose tolerances and FA has extremely tight tolerances. What you can get by with in a Ruger you can't get by with at least not for long in an FA.

Follow manufacturer's recommendations in such matters.

oregoncoyote · « **Reply #4 on:** November 24, 2009, 11:55:19 AM »

"Tolerances. It all about tolerances. Ruger and other makes have loose tolerances and FA has extremely tight tolerances. What you can get by with in a Ruger you can't get by with at least not for long in an FA..... Follow manufacturer's recommendations in such matters."
==============================================

graybeard, i'm really not arguing or trying to push any limits, i'm just trying to understand.

why would closer tolerances be more of a problem? usually its poor tolerances that contribute to wear and failures.

i would think that due to the high-quality and extreme tolerances in Model 83 and 97 FA firearms, that they would hold up much better than any ruger. please explain why that's the opposite of what i understand.

and thank you everyone for offering advise and info!

Groo · « **Reply #5 on:** November 24, 2009, 12:20:31 PM »

Groo here
The FA has very tight chambers and very little crud is needed to mess things up.
Also the FA was the original 454 and operated at higher pressures than the current gun/ammo combination
runs at now..
I have run loads in my original[one of the first adj sight guns] that would match a 460s&w with the same length barrel-- but I would never put them in the other makers guns!!!!!!!!!!!!!

benny123 · « **Reply #6 on:** November 24, 2009, 06:47:46 PM »

Quote from: oregoncoyote on November 24, 2009, 11:55:19 AM

"Tolerances. It all about tolerances. Ruger and other makes have loose tolerances and FA has extremely tight tolerances. What you can get by with in a Ruger you can't get by with at least not for long in an FA..... Follow manufacturer's recommendations in such matters."
==============================================

graybeard, i'm really not arguing or trying to push any limits, i'm just trying to understand.

why would closer tolerances be more of a problem? usually its poor tolerances that contribute to wear and failures.

i would think that due to the high-quality and extreme tolerances in Model 83 and 97 FA firearms, that they would hold up much better than any ruger. please explain why that's the opposite of what i understand.

and thank you everyone for offering advise and info!

You will find a months-old thread by me pleading for an answer on why 454 shells would not eject well out of a recently purchased (used)FA Model 83. Graybeard and others chimed in, suspecting 45LC rounds were shot though it. After looking through the cylinder I realized there was an etch on each of the cylinder walls, pretty much parallel where the mouth of the the 45LC cartridge would be in the cylinder. Thankfully, the suggestion to use a oversize brass brush on a drillbit worked--at least enough to allow smooth ejection of spent 454 cartridges. However this groove in the cylinder is still there.

One of your question was about tolerances and wear. There is a physical law out there that is written as PV=nRT. The idea is that Pressure and Volume are inverse to each other. The less volume you have, the higher the pressure. The greater the temperature the higher the pressure. Tighter tolerances mean potentially higher pressures. Higher pressures = more wear. I think this is pretty straight forward.

The 45LC rounds can cause higher pressure by an accumulation of powder residue in specific areas. Especially if a hotter round like 454 is shot following. Sure, some have said that they have shot 45LC rounds without problems. This maybe the case if you clean the gun really well but I wouldn't advise it.

There was also a comment on the older post (maybe by the owner of F.A.) that the combination of frequent 45LC firings in humid conditions may cause erosion over the long term.

I am presuming you are asking this question because you really want to fire LC rounds in your 454. I would question your motives. If it's recoil, the 454 can be loaded down to 1000 fps levels. (this was my primary reason and why I had to learn how to handload). Compared to the factory loads this was about 800 fps less. The recoil reduction is significant. Less recoil, easy manageability, and no issues with future cylinder damage.

If you just have to to shoot 45LC rounds in the 454 I would definitely purchase a fitted cylinder. The proof is in the pudding. If you saw the cylinder you would understand that this wear really occurs. Yeah, it's probably more due to a combination of alternating these rounds and not keeping it clean but regardless it can happen. Plus, it's probably very unsafe. If I had a camera on me I'd snap a pic but for now you'll have to take my word for it.

oregoncoyote · « **Reply #7 on:** November 25, 2009, 05:15:57 AM »

Quote from: benny123 on November 24, 2009, 06:47:46 PM

You will find a months-old thread by me pleading for an answer on why 454 shells would not eject well out of a recently purchased (used)FA Model 83. Graybeard and others chimed in, suspecting 45LC rounds were shot though it. After looking through the cylinder I realized there was an etch on each of the cylinder walls, pretty much parallel where the mouth of the the 45LC cartridge would be in the cylinder. Thankfully, the suggestion to use a oversize brass brush on a drillbit worked--at least enough to allow smooth ejection of spent 454 cartridges. However this groove in the cylinder is still there.

One of your question was about tolerances and wear. There is a physical law out there that is written as PV=nRT. The idea is that Pressure and Volume are inverse to each other. The less volume you have, the higher the pressure. The greater the temperature the higher the pressure. Tighter tolerances mean potentially higher pressures. Higher pressures = more wear. I think this is pretty straight forward.

The 45LC rounds can cause higher pressure by an accumulation of powder residue in specific areas. Especially if a hotter round like 454 is shot following. Sure, some have said that they have shot 45LC rounds without problems. This maybe the case if you clean the gun really well but I wouldn't advise it.

There was also a comment on the older post (maybe by the owner of F.A.) that the combination of frequent 45LC firings in humid conditions may cause erosion over the long term.

I am presuming you are asking this question because you really want to fire LC rounds in your 454. I would question your motives. If it's recoil, the 454 can be loaded down to 1000 fps levels. (this was my primary reason and why I had to learn how to handload). Compared to the factory loads this was about 800 fps less. The recoil reduction is significant. Less recoil, easy manageability, and no issues with future cylinder damage.

If you just have to to shoot 45LC rounds in the 454 I would definitely purchase a fitted cylinder. The proof is in the pudding. If you saw the cylinder you would understand that this wear really occurs. Yeah, it's probably more due to a combination of alternating these rounds and not keeping it clean but regardless it can happen. Plus, it's probably very unsafe. If I had a camera on me I'd snap a pic but for now you'll have to take my word for it.

benny, you did it. you answered my question with logic and facts, not just dogma. exactly what i was looking for, particularly the description of that "physical law".

and no, i have no desire to fire 45LC in a 454, i just couldn't understand the logic of different companies giving different answers.

thank you so much for taking the time to explain that so well. thank you all.

Hank08 · « **Reply #8 on:** November 27, 2009, 02:53:20 PM »

Just wondering, for all you folks who use nothing but .454 cases in your 83s, is there a big groove being cut in the chamber at the front of the case. If you've shot it much at .454 pressures seems like there'd be a big line around all the chambers. I understand it wouldn't effect the functioning of the gun but if a .45C is cutting the chamber the .454 must be really ripping it apart.
H08

4MUL8R · « **Reply #9 on:** February 25, 2010, 01:54:33 PM »

I suggest if you don't want to go to the trouble and expense of a fitted 45 Colt cylinder that you call Superior Ammo and have custom ammo made for you in a 454 dimension. Ask for a 400 grain hard cast bullet at 1000 to 1100 fps and loaded in the 454 case. No cylinder issues, little recoil, etc.

NOLA · « **Reply #10 on:** March 17, 2010, 02:43:36 PM »

I looked for this answer before
How many rounds are you talking about to crud up the barrel?
not looking for any exact amount just general
I have fired the 45lc in my 460SW and also 454 in it
I am talking about maybe 10 rounds
are you talking about hundreds of rounds?

Grumulkin · « **Reply #11 on:** March 19, 2010, 01:08:46 AM »

Quote from: Hank08 on November 27, 2009, 02:53:20 PM

Just wondering, for all you folks who use nothing but .454 cases in your 83s, is there a big groove being cut in the chamber at the front of the case. If you've shot it much at .454 pressures seems like there'd be a big line around all the chambers. I understand it wouldn't effect the functioning of the gun but if a .45C is cutting the chamber the .454 must be really ripping it apart.

It's not a big groove; it's a very shallow one but enough to prevent easy case ejection when high pressure 454 Casull loads are fired in the revolver.

As for the number of rounds needed to damage the cylinder; I couldn't give an exact number. I'm sure 10 or 20 wouldn't do it. I suspect it would take 200 or 300 but I don't really know and don't really want to find out by personal experience.

Yosemite Sam · « **Reply #12 on:** March 19, 2010, 08:31:19 AM »

I just noticed that a local shop is getting $80/100 for .454 brass. While this is fairly expensive, it's still a lot cheaper than getting a new cylinder from FA.

Another option that was floated to me when I was considering the same thing: Go ahead and shoot .45 Colt out of your .454 cylinder, but only ever shoot .45 Colt out of that cylinder. If you want to step up to .454, send the gun in at that time and have a new .454 cylinder fitted.

I "solved" the problem by buying a model 97 in .45 Colt rather than the model 83. I'm not into Earth-shattering loads, I just wanted the nicest production revolver made.

-- Sam

Lloyd Smale · « **Reply #13 on:** March 20, 2010, 02:16:38 AM »

my take on it is bob says not to do it so why take a chance on voiding your warantee just to use shorter brass to do the same thing.

Boxhead · « **Reply #14 on:** March 31, 2010, 08:31:53 AM »

Quote from: Hank08 on November 27, 2009, 02:53:20 PM

Just wondering, for all you folks who use nothing but .454 cases in your 83s, is there a big groove being cut in the chamber at the front of the case. If you've shot it much at .454 pressures seems like there'd be a big line around all the chambers. I understand it wouldn't effect the functioning of the gun but if a .45C is cutting the chamber the .454 must be really ripping it apart.
H08

Agree completely with nary a response...

hunter3705 · « **Reply #15 on:** January 11, 2011, 03:37:03 PM »

I just re-read the manual and I'm a little bit puzzled. You can shoot .38 specials in a .357. You can shoot .44 specials in a .44 mag. As far as Ruger and Taurus are concerned, you can shoot .45LC out of a .454. I understand what everyone is saying about the tighter tolerances in the chambers, but they still have to be within SAAMI specs., otherwise the ammo wouldn't chamber, so the difference can't be that great. The tighter constriction would be on the muzzle side, anyway, where the bullet exiting the cylinder is lined up with the forcing cone. That's where you could possibly gain some accuracy by working to tighter tolerances. Tightening the chambers up wouldn't really do anything for you, except cause a lot of stuck cases.

I remember years ago when the .357 maximum came out, it had a lot of problems with flame cutting the top strap on Rugers. That problem was outside the cylinder, though, and was caused by the flames resulting from such a massive charge in such a small diameter case. I always thought they could have solved that problem metalurgically, if they would have really tried. Maybe they did, but the fix was too expensive, who knows.

I doubt that any reasonable .45 Colt load would flame cut the inside of the chamber wall, I just can't see it. If it did, it would be a universal problem endemic to all .45 Colts. And it's not. So any ring or ridge on the chamber wall would have to be some combination of powder residue and/or lead. A reasonable amount of firing .45 Colt, followed by a good cleaning after each shooting should take care of that, easily. But FA does have 382 good reasons to recommend not shooting .45 Colt in a .454. Because for ONLY $382 you can buy another [superfluous] cylinder! That's my take on it

hunter3705 · « **Reply #16 on:** January 12, 2011, 03:16:29 AM »

I think I may have found the actual reason they don't recommend it. I have to retract my assertion that their motivation was financial, I stand corrected. I looked in a couple of reloading manuals at the case and overall cartridge dimensions to try to find some clue as to why firing .45LC in a .454 would create a problem. In nearly every case of a "magnum" cartridge, it's smaller parent cartridge case was just lengthened, usually about a tenth of an inch, in order to create the new magnum case. However, for some reason when Dick Casull designed the .454, he decided to make the case diameter .478" instead of the .480" of the .45 Colt parent cartridge. His reason for doing this probably had something to do with the cartridge's pressure curve, and resulting velocity. He must have considered the gain significant enough to warrant making such an odd change. At any rate, it is different, by .002" two one thousandths of an inch. Not much, but it does mean that the SAAMI specs. for the chamber diameter would be smaller for the .454 than for the .45LC. This would cause some case-sticking issues, without a doubt, and is most likely the basis of their recommendation against shooting .45LC in the big Casull.

Ok, that's the problem, now how do we solve it? Well, the extra cylinder solves it very nicely. The downside is you have to send your gun back to FA and it's expensive. There is another option, though. Identify the .45 LC ammo you plan to shoot in your Casull and resize it using the .454 Casull full-length resizing die. Use the other two dies from the .45LC set to finish the reloading. What this will do is give your .45LC cases a diameter of .478" just like a Casull round. They should be no more prone to sticking than the .454 cases are. The downside (there always is one) is that resizing your brass like this will probably shorten the life of the brass, I don't know how much, but .45LC cases seem to be prone to splitting anyway, at least the Remington cases are - in my experience. But ... $382 dollars will buy a lot of .45LC brass!

EdK · « **Reply #17 on:** January 12, 2011, 06:14:19 AM »

1. My new Starline and Winchester 45 Colt brass measures 0.476" at the web. The argument sounds good looking at the SAAMI numbers until you begin measuring components and chambers.

2. I wonder how much the 45 Colt "problem" is due to shooting Ruger or even 5-shot Colt loads (because the 83 can take it) and might be a non-issue entirely with factory Colt loads. Still, I don't do it.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #18 on:** January 12, 2011, 07:40:03 AM »

When you hand load the longer case of the 454 the crimp grove on heavy bullets dictates the OAL of the round . Some bullets have 2 groves .It also dictates case capacity . By going to 45 colt brass you can seat the bullet in the rear most grove and gain case capacity that the bullet took up in the 454 case. FA cyl are short like Colt SA cyl. Using the rear grove with heavy bullets and 454 cases gives to long OAL . I once read an article where when concived the 454 was to shoot light bullets flater than other hand guns and the cyl was left to Colt mesurements . Not sure if this factors into factory warnings or not but it might be a consideration for those wishing to load faster heavy to bore bullets . Maybe the FA isn't the platform to use ?
And no I don't have an axe to grind FA revolvers are very nice guns .

MePlat · « **Reply #19 on:** January 12, 2011, 10:37:22 AM »

Tolerances, tolerances, all this talk about tolerances. I have been using a set of RCBS 45 Colt dies to reload 454 Calsul ammo for my FA's since the late '80's. Never had a problem with them. Used loads that went up to 420 gr LBT WLN GC bullets. No problem whatsoever. And some were and I mean HOTTTTTTTTTTTTT.
Randy Smith (who was an employee of FA at one time) said to use 45 colt ammo if I wanted to. Just keep the chambers clean.
He said if i could afford to shoot enough to hurt the cylinder the price of a new one should be no problem.
I also had a Taurus RB and used the same dies for it and also my Encore 12 incher.
Granted I used mostly 454 FA cases because i came into a bunch cheap.
Now what about the tolerances?
BTW I used the 45 Colt carbide die until a while back and I bought a Lee carbide die to use now.

Bob Baker · « **Reply #20 on:** January 13, 2011, 05:10:34 AM »

The 45 Colt is .100 shorter than the 454 Casull. When shooting the 45C in 454 chambers, lead and powder residue is left in the chamber just ahead of the case. This build up of residue can restrict chambering the longer 454 cartridge and can cause excess pressure by not allowing the crimp of the 454 to easily open up to allow the bullet to exit the case.

Another potential problem is when the revolver is cooling down after firing it collects moisture. This moisture mixed with the lead and powder residue creates an acid which can etch the chamber underneath the lead and powder residue. With this condition, even if the residue is cleaned out of the chamber, the longer 454 case will now stick in the etched area of the chamber when fired and can be difficult to remove depending on the amount of etching. Over the years we have seen this problem more from guns in high humidity areas than from low humidity areas but it still occurs in the low humidity areas.

For some folks this seems to be an emotional issue and some folks even claim that all we are trying to do make extra money on extra cylinders. What we are actually trying to do is help our customers get the most trouble free life from their FA revolver as possible. I know of some customers that have shot thousands of 45C rounds in their 454 chambers with no problems but they thoroughly clean the gun when finished shooting. Other customers have ended up with one of the above problems fairly quick also. All we can do is put out the information, it is up to the individual what they do with the information.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #21 on:** January 13, 2011, 09:46:03 AM »

Bob Baker , Could you tell us if the story I related about the light bullets is a fact or just another story to sell magazines ? Thanks.

Bob Baker · « **Reply #22 on:** January 13, 2011, 12:00:00 PM »

SHOOTALL, I’m not sure where that story came from so I’m not quite sure how to address it.

Basically the 454 works best with bullets weighing from about 240 gr. up to about 325 gr. Years ago I did testing with the 185 gr. and 200 gr. bullets. I could get some impressive velocity with them but I shortened the life of the forcing cone doing it. The lighter the bullet, the less efficient the powder burns so more powder is burning in the barrel which tends to erode the barrel forcing cone. A really good example of this is the 460 S&W. It gets some impressive velocities with the 200 gr. bullets but it also has a short barrel life due to the light bullet. This is why we don’t put out load data with light bullets.

When going to the real heavy bullets a person will lose case capacity so there is a point of diminishing returns. As a general rule I always used a 300 gr. bullet for the heavy game that hunts back and a 260 gr. for everything else.

You mentioned that our cylinder is the length of the Colt SAA but it is actually quite a bit longer to allow for the 454. You may be thinking of our Model 97 which is about the same length as the SAA.

oregoncoyote · « **Reply #23 on:** January 13, 2011, 12:12:36 PM »

thank you for the clarifications, Bob.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #24 on:** January 14, 2011, 02:16:30 AM »

Bob Baker thank you , no more light bullets . And I do believe you are right about the mod numbers. Thanks again.

MePlat · « **Reply #25 on:** January 14, 2011, 02:46:17 AM »

Bob Baker said: " I know of some customers that have shot thousands of 45C rounds in their 454 chambers with no problems but they thoroughly clean the gun when finished shooting. Other customers have ended up with one of the above problems fairly quick"
Kinda very similar to what Randy smith told me about keeping the chambers clean.
I wonder if the ones that have had the problems were the ones that rarely cleaned their chambers and then started the rant about not shooting 45 Colt ammo in the 454 FA's?

hunter3705 · « **Reply #26 on:** January 15, 2011, 03:00:43 AM »

It sounds to me like a thorough cleaning after each shooting session is the key to preventing the problem. I also use a cleaning solvent called Ballistol that leaves a micro-thin coating on the gun. It's the best kept secret in gun cleaning. It's so ridiculously superior to Hoppes, and gunscrubber, and all the others, and yet onbody other than Midway carries it.

AkRay · « **Reply #27 on:** January 22, 2011, 04:49:53 PM »

I recently bought a nice used Field Grade .454 that the previous owner had fired 45 Colt cartridges in. I've been trying to clean the lead smears and burn rings from the chambers too. I've always used ammo of the full length in all my magnums just because of the potential for this problem. It's too bad the guy I bought this one from didn't think the same way.