A Momentous Leap in Handgun Power Occurred with the Advent of the .44 Magnum
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A momentous leap in handgun power occurred with the advent of the .44 Magnum. Based on traditional six-shot revolvers, the round garnered a lot of press and critical acclaim. In parallel to its release a young gunsmith named Dick Casull began tinkering with the .45 Colt. These early “.45 Magnum” experiments involved triplex loads, warp speeds, and a few bent Single-Action Armies. Casull was pushing the envelope hard. Off-the-shelf wheelguns just couldn’t contain the old Colt run to these levels. A custom revolver, complete with minimal spec construction and five-shot cylinder was in order. Casull built such a gun and promoted his wildcat for over two decades. His efforts were further legitimized when Freedom Arms unveiled the Mode 83 in .454 Casull. We now had a platform that could handle 60,000 PSI and stay tight in the process. .44 Magnum standards were shattered and Dirty Harry’s famous line no longer held. Five-shot geometry offers two distinct advantages. First, it permits higher operating pressure and thus greater velocity. Added steel between each bore and offset bolt stops up the safety curve. Secondly, some rounds are too large in diameter for six-shot configuration. Examples include the .475 and .500 Linebaughs. If you query leading pistolsmiths these two likely top their five-shot business. Men like Hamilton Bowen, Jack Huntington, Alan Harton, and David Clements all routinely chamber these bruisers. But before the .475 and .500, John Linebaugh made a name for himself converting Sevilles and Abilenes to heavy .45 Colt. After milling the top and bottom of the frame window John installed oversized six-shot cylinders. Early tests gave jaw dropping performance, easy extraction, and excellent case life in spite of 50,000 PSI pressure. Pretty neat considering the cartridge was born out of the black powder era. Eventually John switched to five-shot cylinders and used Ruger Blackhawks and Bisleys as the base. In doing so he reconnected with Casull’s work from the 1960s. The history of the .454 starts with Dick Casull’s homebuilt revolver from 1957 and ends with Freedom Arms in 1983. Overlooked is all the development Casull did between those years. It’s a little known fact Dick converted quite a few Super Blackhawks to .454 Magnum throughout the 60’s and early 70’s. William Calder published one of the first articles on Ruger .454’s in the February 1966 issue of Guns Magazine (that article can be read by clicking the link below): 454 Magnum.pdf Dick also partnered with North American Arms around 1977 and assembled a couple prototype .454s. They were fixed sight, stainless steel, and similar in appearance to the Model 83. That initiative stalled and Casull moved on to team with Wayne Baker. North American Arms countered with their ill-fated .450 Magnum Express Eagle in 1984. Quality was mediocre and only 530 were shipped before the plug was pulled. The big-bore five shooter has come a long way in the past thirty years. Custom shops and production runs like the BFR and FA 83 have solidified its place in mainstream handgunning. And while a logistical must for some cartridges, a five-shot cylinder is an upgrade for the .45 Colt. But what does the added strength give the shooter in terms of performance? To answer this we first need to define the five power levels of the .45 Colt: 15,000 PSI Colt Peacekeepers and clones 23,000 PSI Ruger New Vaqueros, mid-size Ruger flattops, S&W N-frames Blackhawks, Redhawks, Abilenes, Sevilles, El Dorados, Virginian 30,000 PSI Dragoons, Freedom Arms 97, Dan Wessons 40,000 PSI Over-size 6-shots, minimum cylinder o.d. of 1.80” 60,000 PSI Freedom Arms 83 and custom 5-shot Rugers Focusing on the third and fifth categories, I hope to objectively cover bone-stock versus custom five-shot Colts. Gains will be realized but the degree of uptick may be a surprise to some. Ruger finally offered a .45 Blackhawk in 1970. Built on the New Model frame it was safe to 30,000 PSI and launched 250 – 260 grain bullets at 1,400+ fps. Sure, the .44 Magnum could do 1,500 with 240s but it took 33% more pressure to get there. Even so, the debate over .44 versus .45 will inevitably rage on. And while I no desire to join the fray, I will say this. The .44 Magnum and .45 Colt are argued in lock-step while the .41 is deemed the middle magnum. Applying simple math tells us .44 caliber is 0.019” larger than .41 and 0.023” less than the .45. So when assessing the .357 to .45 Colt continuum I’d say we have two middle magnums. But comparing and contrasting the two is a waste of time. Each is outstanding and offers stellar performance. If forced to choose however I’d pick the Colt. Added caliber and the ability to shoot heavier weights would be the reasons. My first exposure to beyond “Ruger Only” .45 Colts was a home-built .454. Done on a stainless Blackhawk in 1996, the conversion has taken big doses of Casull and five-shot Colt. I wasn’t sure how the frame would respond but after 17 years it’s still tight. Then in 2003 I purchased an Acusport Bisley with every intention of switching it to five-shot. It didn’t happen, even though I struggled to get accuracy from that piece. Corrected throats, fire-lapping, and a recut cone improved things a bit. I also found it needed to be run wide-open. When filled with 335 grain and up cast bullets and packed over ball powder it grouped. Let off the gas and it patterned like a 12 gauge. I can’t explain the why or how but that held firm all the way to 6,000 rounds. When it turned ten I decided to tear it down and build a .45 Colt to my liking. A long five-shot cylinder, premium barrel, and matched specs were must haves. I also wanted it to be working class in appearance. Nothing against high-end customs but I prefer my guns be simple and clean. Fancy sights, exotic wood, and presentation grade blue with color case photograph well. They do nothing for accuracy, durability, or terminal punch. I’d like to digress for a moment. It’s hard to discuss Ruger .45 Colts without getting into throat dimensions. This site contains an article on the subject so I won’t rehash my findings. Instead, I’ll illustrate how we cut cylinder bores. Let me start by saying we never finish the throats with a reamer. While they work they’re limited by: 1) Reamers can “walk” which compromises concentricity, and 2) Reamers leave machine marks which abrade the bullet. Here’s a close-up of a reamed cylinder throat. The grit particles obstruct the view but the marks are noticeable between 6 and 9 o’clock. This cylinder was reamed undersized at 0.450 – 0.451”. Final dimensions will be done using a Sunnen Hone. For those not familiar with hones there’s no better way to achieve throat concentricity. Hones use an abrasive stone and a self-truing process. Unlike grinding, which allows wheel imperfections to be imparted on the object, honing follows a complex path. The stones simultaneously enlarge the hole radially while they oscillate axially. And since the stones erode towards the desired geometry there’s no need to true them. So what does that mean? Basically the honed component holds better concentricity than the machine tool that created it (ie, the reamer). Better yet, our Sunnen Hone is accurate to 0.0001” and can return varying textures to include near- mirror finish. This gun will see 0.452” cast bullets so the desired throat is 0.4525”. That extra half- thousandth allows the bullet to pass without material upsizing or constriction. Using a micrometer, a gauge is set to indicate at 0.4525”. All throats were checked against the indicated gauge. The dial at the top tells you if you’re off or not. If the hole falls to the left of the zero, it’s too small. If it falls to the right it’s too large. All of our throats zeroed dead on which means 0.4525”. Now you may ask why we don’t use pin gauges. It’s simple. Pin gauge sets are to the thousandth. In other words, they don’t indicate where I’m landing in between 0.452” and 0.453”. This gauge does and like the hone is accurate to the ten-thousandth. There’s more than one way to throat a cylinder and honing isn’t an end-all. And I’m not suggesting reamers walk as much as drill bits. They hold form very well. But reamers can wear unevenly and won’t bore a throat as concentric as a hone. As for the machine marks, they can be fire lapped with abrasive compound (I like Clover brand), soft lead bullets, and low velocity. They can also be polished out but that may impact concentricity and it’s harder to maintain uniform diameter across six holes. Honing provides the desired surface finish from the hit. The conversion involved our standard methodology for cylinder build, bore indexing, and barrel installation. All of which are documented in my Buffalo Seville article. Five- shots require timing modifications not covered in that piece however. I won’t exact those detail but will say they necessitate alterations to the pawl and hammer plunger.