45 ACP/45AR

[Jack Flash]

RD wrote:
"A good substitute for it that you can push max with is the recent Ruger convertible .45acp/.45Colt, I have some really great loads with 185g JHP's that sizzle without any pressure signs. ..."

RD:
I wanted to ask a simple, somewhat on-topic question -
Can you shoot .45 AR in a SA Ruger chambered for .45 ACP?

I never thought of this before, but my guess would be "No" since extraction amounts to "poke out" in a SA, it would probably be impractical and unsafe to make it handle .45 AR, unless that was all it was meant to handle.

 

[Dale53]

One of the problems getting good data on the .45 Auto Rim is that SAAMI standards were set lower than for the .45 ACP because the original factory loads used soft swaged bullets that leaded the barrels badly at elevated (.45 ACP) pressures. So, you start out with a reduced pressure allowance for this reason. Most reloading data today is to SAAMI standards. This is way underpowered from what is safe. Further, Speer and Hornady data on heavy bullets are for soft, swaged, bullets and they have leading issues. Cast bullets of appropriate temper can be loaded heavier than swaged bullets with excellent accuracy and NO leading.

I agree with the 23,000 psi point. The problem is, no one is giving us pressure figures with these desirable heavy bullets (in my case the 454424 Lyman in the Auto Rim Cases).

However, Brian Pearce's article on the .45 Auto Rim (Handloader magazine #254 - August/September 2008) gives good data and he is a writer that I trust to give us the true skinny. John Taffin's information on the Auto Rim is also a good source:

SMITH & WESSON'S 625-2

The answer to the question about Auto Rim with the Ruger Single Action - the short answer is NO. The Auto Rim case rim is too thick. The Ruger does not have adequate headspace to allow use of the Auto Rim.

However, the .45 Cowboy Special has a .45 Colt rim with a .45 ACP body and THEY will work in the Ruger ACP cylinder (at least in two Ruger convertibles that I tried it in):

http://www.cowboy45special.com/

Dale53

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

As you must know Dale53,

I'm a huge fan of Pearce, an have quoted him here often. I didn't in this thread with the exception of the 23,000 psi for the .45's, but I'm glad that you did. He and Taffin are the finest writers in the business and I agree... they give the straight skinny when it comes to pressures and strength. A lot of what I have posted here comes from personal experiences, but a lot came from the two articles you listed. I have learned more from Pearce thn any other writer ever, and he backs it up with pressure tested data and common sense, which I really appreciate.

Thanks for mentioning those articles.

I would say that any serious handloader should subscribe to both Rifle, and especially Handloader, more than any other magazine. They will learn more there than here or anywhere else, and from men who have access to industry insider information that most of us don't, not to mention the pressure equipment.

 

[Tell Sackett]

Tell-I don't think I understand your post above.

According to Linebaugh, the frames are the same strength, not the cylinders.

I think the problem is with whom you are quoting. That is why I posted those excerpts from your source.

I didn't try to run the Linebaugh flag up this flagpole, you did and it seems like he is an extremely "confused expert".

Here is the whole section you asked us to read:

The load data printed at the beginning of this article is considered MAXIMUM safe loads with listed bullets for RUGER BLACKHAWKS ONLY - (and, if you must shoot them, Contenders).

The Smith & Wesson Model 25-5 chambered for the .45 Colt is a fine gun and one I pack daily myself. The problem with the Smith &Wesson guns in general is not so much a strength factor but rather a design factor. Before you S&W people beat up on me please listen. It has long been evident that the Model 29 in .44 Magnum very quickly beats itself apart with full-power loads. This is not technically a "strength" problem as much as a design problem and the assemblage of several small parts that are not as rugged as the Single Action design. In the course of time if all the little parts wear a tiny bit this soon adds up to a lot of play in the overall fit and lock-up of the gun. This in turn allows the gun to get a further "run" at itself under discharge and thus hastens the battering process.

In reality the Model 25-5 is about 80% as strong as the Model 29 in the cylinder area. The frames are the same and are designed for a 40,000 psi load level even though we know this is a bit more than they are happy with. It's too bad S&W built a 40,00 psi cylinder and installed it in a 30,000 psi frame, so to speak. (note: since this writing S&W has worked on the problem of the cylinder unlatching and rolling back under recoil after it gets a bit worn) The 25-5 in .45 Colt is safe to 80% of the 40,000 psi of the .44 Magnum Model 29. This allows a load of 32,000 psi in this frame. I have shot hundreds of the 32,000 psi class loads listed at the beginning of this article in several Model 25-5's. Recoil is heavy due to the S&W "hump" on the grip, but I do not see these loads as being dangerous in this fine gun. I do consider 32,000 to be ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM for this gun and prefer to hold my personal loads to 5% under those listed loads for approximately 25,000 psi. I carry a S&W 4" in .45 Colt daily and shoot a 260 gr. Keith at 900 fps for general duty. When I saddle up and go into the hills I pack the same gun with a 310 gr. NEI Keith over 23 gr. H-110. This gives me about 1080 fps and all the punch I need for anything on our mountain. As with any gun and load data, work up carefully. I assume responsibility only for the ammo I myself assemble.

So as I read the article, the frame is weak but the cylinder is strong. Then as you reread it it seems like the frame is the issue.

Here is my point, and I want to make this as clear as possible. The Smith & Wesson M625 is as strong in the cylinder as a M629. Even the "expert" in the article above agrees to it. It is the hand and the extractor star and other delicate things that wear and THEN problems can arise out of untimed firearms. If you want your firearm to last longer use lighter loads.

Excuse the vernacular but "DUH"!

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

Tell,

You are trying to pick nits, and make your point by using a simple mistype.

Remember this-
Linebaugh himself is a master gunsmith, not a professional writer, and what he said about the frames and cylinders is an obvious mistype. You can see that from this section here-

In reality the Model 25-5 is about 80% as strong as the Model 29 in the cylinder area. The frames are the same and are designed for a 40,000 psi load level even though we know this is a bit more than they are happy with.

This section below is obviously a mistype, and if you read all of Linebaugh's writings, that is perfectly clear.-

It's too bad S&W built a 40,00 psi cylinder and installed it in a 30,000 psi frame, so to speak.

If you don't care for him that is your choice, but you'd be making a mistake to try to claim that he is a "confused expert". If you can show me someone with more practical experience and knowledge about the capabilities of a modern revolver, I'll be glad to listen to you. I would like to see some type of evidence to their credentials. Linebaugh's are well known and respected throughout the firearms industry.


Common sense dictates that a cylinder with 20% thinner walls cannot be as strong as one with thicker walls. It would defy the laws of physics. The weakest part of a S&W outside of the cylinder locking notch is always the numerous small parts used. That's something that can't be denied, and no one is. They have nothing to do with containing pressure though.

 

[Tell Sackett]

Here is a point that isn't about "nits". And we, us Americans do it all the time. We make "super humans" out of folks that we want to.

If he is going to be deemed as an "expert" he well better be able to communicate what he means to the public, wouldn't you think?

Could you see those statements brought up in a court of law? A still wet behind the ears defense attorney would chew it up and spit it out!

I'm not saying that he isn't knowledgeable or anything like that. It just seems that the source article you picked to show us the inadequacies of the M625 platform for heavy rounds is a bit confusing, at least to this simpleton.

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

Tell-

I am not trying to show the inadaquacies of the platform. To the contrary. You are new here, so obviously haven't read many of my posts. I am a big fan of any .45 caliber gun, and I love the Smiths. I have stated so many times here, and have posted many times about the so called weaknesses of the platform as being undeserved.

Still this is a public forum that even non memebers can read, and to post that the 625 is as strong as the 629 is inaccurate at the least, and may cause someone reading to try something risky or dangerous. Maybe even injure themselves. I wouldn't want that, and I don't believe that you do either.

 

[Dale53]

One of the most used caliber revolvers in the past 150 years has been the .45 Colt (more use in the last part of the 18th century but also plenty since). The original specs with black powder would drive a 260 gr bullet through a horse at 100 yards.

The 625 .45 ACP can safely and easily drive a 260 gr bullet at the same level (reloads only). That should be enough for most work.
Add a Keith style bullet and you have about 25% more stopping power in the same package with safe pressures in the 625 .45 ACP.

A 250-260 gr Keith at 900 fps is the max that I will ask of my 625's. That will do what needs to be done. If I need more, I'll get one of my "heavy hitters".

YMMV
Dale53

 

[Tell Sackett]

Not to belabor a point but....................

They say one picture is worth a thousand words. I drew this picture in AutoCad with the exact dimensions I measured with micrometers.

The diameter of the cylinder is the same on both my M629 Classic and my M625-8, 1.712". I measured the outside diameter of the chamber diameter with inside micrometers for both calibers and drew the chambers accordingly. Then I drew the "notches" that I measured by calipers, which I know is not near as accurate, and put them in. In reality, they aren't needed to show my original statement of a difference of .009" difference between the chamber wall and the notch. Simply showing the difference would have sufficed.

I know my literary skills can be wanting at times as well. That is why I have drawn the picture. I also have a call into Mr. Linebaugh to have him clarify his statements.

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

I'm glad that you called Linebaugh. I was going to suggest that. I have talked to him a few times, and he was always very helpful and friendly.

Your drawing while very nice, shows little. Where are all the dimensions? I inclued all of them in my post and they speak for themselves. I took them as I said from 5 different revolvers, measuring each notch and chamber mouth wall.

I even went and pulled another .44 out just now to check it, and it is the same as the other two .44's. So now I have checked three .44's against three .45's, and the difference between outside chamber wall thickness is .009" in overall thickness. The .44's notch depth average is .042", leaving a metal thickness between the bottom of the notch, and the inside of the chamber wall of .024".

Again, the depth notch average on the three .44's is .035", leaving a metal thickness between the bottom of the notch and the inside wall of the chamber of .040".

.040" minimum thickness on the .44 minus the .024" minimum thickness on the .45's, equals a difference of .016" in favor of the .44 at the thinnest point on the cylinder.

I doubt that you will ever agree here, since you have debated strongly for your position. I have layed it out as clear as possible for you, and anyone who might be reading along, in the hopes of maybe saving someone from taking bad advice and pushing a fine .45 caliber handgun beyond its limits and getting hurt, or worse.

I will say no more here, as there is no percentage in it.

 

[Tell Sackett]

Dimensions coming up!
You know what?

I bet this isn't the first time you haven't taken it too well that you were wrong!

Just a guess though, me being new and all!

 

[Tell Sackett]

With all of the dimensions, sir.

 

[BUFF]

RD:
I wanted to ask a simple, somewhat on-topic question -
Can you shoot .45 AR in a SA Ruger chambered for .45 ACP?

I never thought of this before, but my guess would be "No" since extraction amounts to "poke out" in a SA, it would probably be impractical and unsafe to make it handle .45 AR, unless that was all it was meant to handle.

Skeeter Skelton wrote once in the late 1970's that he thought of having the .45 ACP cylinder of his Blackhawk's chambers recessed for the thick rim of the .45 Auto Rim cartridge. Thus, with a quick cylinder swap, he could shoot the .45 ACP, .45 Auto Rim and .45 Colt. He said it might be frivolous, though, as there was precious little Auto Rim brass around then and it might be on it's way to becoming an obsolete cartridge.

Of course, he was incorrect about the future of the Auto Rim. Since Skeeter's death in 1988, S&W revolvers for the .45 ACP have become wildly popular and demand for the rimmed alternative round has soared. I am sure far more of it is sold, mostly as empty brass, loaded and shot today than at any time since it's introduction.

The first handloading manual I bought, about 1975, was the Lyman 45th Edition. The top loads in it for the Auto Rim are a 225 grain bullet (they used the Lyman 452374) over 7.0 grains of Unique for 988 fps, and a 238 grain bullet (Lyman 452453) over 6.8 grains of Unique for 981 fps, both fired from a S&W Model 25 with 6-1/2 inch barrel.

Oddly, in the .45 ACP section, they load the same 225 grain bullet over 7.2 grains of Unique for 967 fps, fired from a 5 inch Colt Gov't Model.

My most used Auto Rim handload is a cast Lyman 454424, a SWC weighing in at about 255-260 grains depending on metal used, over 6.2 grains of Unique for 825-875 fps, depending on the sixgun used. I use an RCBS special ordered roll crimp die with my RCBS .45 ACP carbide die set and RCBS Auto Rim shell holder. It about duplicates the ballistics of the traditional Winchester and Remington .45 Colt factory loads but uses a better bullet.

All three of the .45 caliber catridges discussed here are just great in the N frame S&W sixguns. If I NEED more power than a 255 grain bullet at 875 fps will give me, I need a .44 Magnum or a rifle.

And THAT likely wouldn't be too durn often.

 

[Jack Flash]

Thanks for the information, Buff.

I just always assume any revolver that shoots .45 ACP will also fire .45 AR. Obviously, that's only true for Double Action Revolvers.

Skeeter Skelton's musings about having a special cylinder made are interesting but sound impractical, unless you just have money burning a hole in your pocket. I'm sure that the reason Ruger offered a spare .45 ACP cylinder to go with a .45 Colt SA is/was to take advantage of the availability / low cost of .45 ACP (at least back when it was the military service round and presumably available on the surplus market.)

 

[brucev]

Just thinking out loud, but if one wanted to make a .45 cylinder that would handle the AR, it would appear that one could simply machine a .45 ACP cylinder down from the rear and then deepen the chambers accordingly. Is this a workable method? Would the AR cartridge fit through the loading gate on the Ruger single-action? Sincerely. brucev.

 

[Jack Flash]

Just thinking out loud, but if one wanted to make a .45 cylinder that would handle the AR, it would appear that one could simply machine a .45 ACP cylinder down from the rear and then deepen the chambers accordingly. Is this a workable method? Would the AR cartridge fit through the loading gate on the Ruger single-action? Sincerely. brucev.

I think that's approximately right, except there is no reason to machine off the entire cylinder, IMHO. Just cut into each chamber far enough for the rim to seat "partially submerged". You would also have to ream each chamber a corresponding amount. I believe if you look at Buff's post where it says "... he thought of having the .45 ACP cylinder of his Blackhawk's chambers recessed for the thick rim of the .45 Auto Rim cartridge ... " that is what Skeeter Skelton was proposing.

As far as fitting through the loading gate:
The AR's nominal rim diameter is .516 in, whereas the .45 Colt's is .512. This is only four thousanths of an inch difference, and I imagine that Ruger allows a greater tolerance than that for clearance in the loading gate. Somebody who has one could check that. The AR has a thick rim, but not an especially wide one.

 

[Jellybean]

There should be no reason to deepen or ream the cylinder a little. You are machining the back of the cylinder to allow the thicker rim to fit, the cartridge would still be sitting at the same over all depth. The ACP cases headspace on the mouth, which would not be affected by shortening the cylinder from the back. The thickness of the ARs rim is the sum of the thicknesses of the ACP case and the moon clip used for extraction.

Modern AR brass has the same inside dimensions as ACP brass and loading data can be used interchangably with each other. As Dale53 mentioned above the difference is because when SAAMI set the standards for the AR there was only one factory loading and it was loaded light because of the lead bullet fouling at higher velocity.

 

[Tell Sackett]

Just got off the phone with Mr. Linebaugh. What an individual!

Personable, intelligent, forthright, interesting, knowledgeable, and any other adjective you could use to define a real officianado of our sport. A real person, a standup kind of guy!

The first thing he would like to convey is that he is truly sorry for any confusion that his article caused. You can call him yourself to authenticate anything said here, and I encourage you to do just that. Don't take my word, ask him.

He made several statements concerning his article. He said that the cylinders of both the M629 and the M625 are made to withstand 40,000, and he got a little "fuzzy" as to whether it was CUP or PSI, blamed it on old age, I understood! Even with the "bolt notch" being dead center of the chamber! He said he has purposely destroyed cylinders in a special "handgun" he designed for that purpose and has NEVER, EVER, had one blow up at that point. They have ALWAYS, EVERYTIME, blown up at the base of the bullet, period, and he said he has destroyed a few, on purpose.

We spoke for about 30 minutes and he shared a bunch of his experiences, for the most part, I listened, willingly.

He made another statement that I found exceptionally interesting, given recent events on the forum. Do you know what that is?

I'll share it with you. He said that there is a greater danger of blowing up a firearm by deep seating a bullet over increasing a powder charge! I almost fell off of my chair!

He gave an illustration with someone from Carthage, Ill. This individual is a powder expert, blows holes with dynamite in granite to make little rocks out of big ones. It basically goes like this:

What happens if you take a certain pattern (he told me but old age again) boring and put a charge in the bottom of the whole with the normal type of packing and touch it off. He asked the expert in blasting: "What do you get?" The expert said: "Nice sized rocks that I can run through the crusher." Now Mr. Linbaugh asks him what he gets if he were to use the same charge, same boring pattern and pack the hole with the sealing agent only push it in with a D7 Cat. The expert said: "You better be far away and behind another D7 Cat to be safe!" Mr. Linebaugh, who volunteered this story without coercion, said that that is what you get when you deep seat a bullet.

Now, to clarify what he meant to say in his article and he plans on redoing it later. A Smith and Wesson BY DESIGN, with it's swing out cylinder, crane and such like will not stand up to the abuse that a single action will because of design of the frame, not the cylinder. The cylinder is capable of taking the full power loads, period, whether Ruger or Smith.

A Smith and Wesson will shoot itself loose in 1000 rounds where the Ruger will not. It comes from end shake, not cylinder damage. Again with full power loads.

His loads run about 30,000psi that he carries everyday and he says it will last a lifetime at that pressure!

Mr. Linebaugh is quite a personable individual! He says he doesn't have a TV, computer and something else I can't remember, he spoke so fast.

Give him a call!

 

[BUFF]

What Skeeter meant was to take the existing, already supplied .45 ACP Ruger Blackhawk cylinder and add a counterbore to each chamber's rear, for the rim of the cartridge case. Picture an older S&W Magnum revolver cylinder's counterbore. It would be a fairly simple task for a well equipped machinist.

The only Blackhawk I have is a .357 that belonged to my late aunt and uncle, so I can't check the loading gate size question, but can't imagine they wouldn't fit. Blackhawks are good guns, I just never got into Ruger single actions.

 

[Jack Flash]

There should be no reason to deepen or ream the cylinder a little. You are machining the back of the cylinder to allow the thicker rim to fit, the cartridge would still be sitting at the same over all depth...

Good catch Jellybean. I was thinking wrong about this. Of course the case length for both the .45 AR and .45 ACP is the same, so no need to lengthen the chamber.

I do agree with Buff (and Skeeter) that you would get a more elegant result by recessing the chambers to allow the .45 AR to seat in the chamber with the rim partially enclosed. Shortening the cylinder may be quicker and easier, but the end result would be less pleasing, to me anyway.