Colt DA or Colt SAA

I went with Elmer Keith's 'Sixguns' for my opinion.
If you've heard of it, get it. If anyone knew about manstopping ( or animal ) it was Elmer.
Awesome book, he shot animals with sixguns and knew lots of old timers who shot men. Heck, he developed the .357 magnum IIRC, was involved in the 44 magnum developing too.
He said a 36 C & B BP was equal to the 38 spl ( maybe he just disliked it though...)
As instrumental as he was when it came to developing cast bullets , you'd likely enjoy it Jethunter
 
IIRC, Keith also said the .270 was too small for deer sized game.I read most of Keith's stuff 30 years ago. Some of it was worthwhile. :)
 
There is no comparison between the two, where the old double action Colts are essentially novelties today only suitable for the absolute lightest of loads, the SAA is a relatively robust gun with enormous parts support. It will resale far easier if you tire of it, is several times stronger, more reliable, and generally just a far better gun. I carry an antique SAA more days than not lately, working in the bush.

I wrote an article on the .41, and it's nothing to scoff at, it can be loaded to shoot as accurately as any modern cartridge out of the same SAA. I've shot a large steer with it as well on the farm in the vitals, and it killed it without much drama. Save the money from the double action to get you that much closer to an SAA.

http://www.morrisonarms.com/2012/06/the-41-colt-part-i/
 
Ardent said:
There is no comparison between the two, where the old double action Colts are essentially novelties today only suitable for the absolute lightest of loads, the SAA is a relatively robust gun with enormous parts support. It will resale far easier if you tire of it, is several times stronger, more reliable, and generally just a far better gun. I carry an antique SAA more days than not lately, working in the bush.

I wrote an article on the .41, and it's nothing to scoff at, it can be loaded to shoot as accurately as any modern cartridge out of the same SAA. I've shot a large steer with it as well on the farm in the vitals, and it killed it without much drama. Save the money from the double action to get you that much closer to an SAA.

http://www.morrisonarms.com/2012/06/the-41-colt-part-i/
Click to expand...

Shooting a steer with a .41 is quite interesting. What was the bullet placement and what bullet were you using?
 
That is amazing penetration!! I couldn't get that bullet to reliably penetrate 6" in ballistic gel. What kind of powder charge were you using and what do you think the velocity was?
 
4.0grs of trail boss, for 750fps. I'm more than surprised at your ballistic gel results as I've put this bullet through 6" of spruce planks without trouble. We use rough cut spruce planks that are 3" thick and I often shoot a stack for penetration tests informally. For instance a .38 Special 158gr LRN goes through 1.5, or 4.5" of spruce. The .41 easily does 6" with the 202gr. I'd reshoot your ballistic gelatin and check your velocity over the chrono, 6" is less than or at best the same as a .25ACP. Yes it clipped a rib on the way in, but not directly.
 
Ardent said:
4.0grs of trail boss, for 750fps. I'm more than surprised at your ballistic gel results as I've put this bullet through 6" of spruce planks without trouble. We use rough cut spruce planks that are 3" thick and I often shoot a stack for penetration tests informally. For instance a .38 Special 158gr LRN goes through 1.5, or 4.5" of spruce. The .41 easily does 6" with the 202gr. I'd reshoot your ballistic gelatin and check your velocity over the chrono, 6" is less than or at best the same as a .25ACP. Yes it clipped a rib on the way in, but not directly.
Click to expand...

No need to re-check anything. :) I'm fairly certain of my results, and that's why I questioned yours.

My loads chronographed 770 fps and did just under 6" in ballistic gel, with a 3/8" spruce plywood front panel on the gel chamber.

But of course I was shooting a DA 1889 colt, it probably will penetrate at least double that when shot out of a SAA.
 
But of course I was shooting a DA 1889 colt, it probably will penetrate at least double that when shot out of a SAA.

I've got a '89 too, but I run 4.5 gr of Unique. The lighter medium frame does light up into the palm of your your hand doesn't it?
I'm confident enough shooting it in SA mode but I think I've only fired it twice in DA. Just can't do it with 100 % confidence.
As long as I do my part and feed it good reloads, I feel the steel is up to it, I just don't trust the DA timing.
Nature of the beast, I suppose.
 
jethunter said:
No need to re-check anything. :) I'm fairly certain of my results, and that's why I questioned yours.

My loads chronographed 770 fps and did just under 6" in ballistic gel, with a 3/8" spruce plywood front panel on the gel chamber.

But of course I was shooting a DA 1889 colt, it probably will penetrate at least double that when shot out of a SAA.
Click to expand...

Something is wrong with your experiment, as 7.5 birdshot makes 6" in ballistic gelatin, and a .177 calibration BB at 600 fps does as much as just shy of 4" and remains in spec. You must be getting tumbling or the gelatin out of spec, 6" just doesn't make sense for a 202gr bullet at 770fps. A .22 will penetrate the same on livestock as my .41, and a quick google finds penetration ranges of 12-17" for .22 in ballistic gelatin with a handgun.

What did your block look like, and do you have pics of the cavity and better yet a video to see what happened? I'm betting your bullets are barely stabilized and yawing, and deforming as a result, dumping their energy in a hurry. Out of my bore, the bullet tracked dead straight and with a small would channel through the vitals. I'm suspecting you're barely stabilized and hitting plywood then entering the gel is upsetting the bullet, must have giggled that block pretty well coming to a dead halt in 6".
 
My fault for not explaining better.

There is not much point in comparing penetration of an animal to penetration rates in regular ballistic gel. In real life #7.5 shot doesn't pentrate 6" of meat. If it did they wouldn't have needed to use BB and #2 shot on geese for the last 100 years. :)

Regular ballistic gel is good for discovering the comparitive toughness of a bullet but not much use for relating to real world performance on killing game animals. My ballistic testing mixture is from a recipe I came across years ago and I didn't learn it on youtube. In my gel a winchester super-x power point 30-06 180 gr will penetrate approximately 12"-14". A 30-06 180 gr solid will pentrate 20-22". If you have some experience shooting game animals then you would know that compares favourably to results that would be expected in bullet performance on MEAT. And 3/8" spruce plywood is not a bad substitute for hide and hair on a large animal but that does depend somewhat on the animal.

Yaw was not a factor in the 41LC testing but bullet shape certainly was. In lthe lower velocity bullets that we are discussing, a flat nose will penetrate several inches less than a round nose. OTOH Flat point cast bullets create a larger wound channel than RN cast bullets.

I have slaughtered dozens of cattle and I did it all with a brain shot with a .22 solid. My father would have tanned my butt for experimenting with chest shots on beef cattle. It wasn't done.

If that anaemic little bullet had hit a rib square instead of just touching it, then would we expect that 300 ft lbs would have been enough energy to make a clean kill or would the bullet have spent itself breaking the rib and stopped short? At best it's highly questionable. I don't criticize it because i don't know the circumstances but it's not something I'd brag about.

You probably had good penetration on your cow because you were in soft organ tissue. Proof again that shot placement is still the single most important factor in killing anything. I don't think you'd experience that much penetration if you were shooting through solid flesh and muscle.

Some more random data for comparison.
38spl 150 gr RN: 7"
38spl 158gr SWC: 5.5"
.455webley 265 gr RNHB 6"
41 LC 205gr RNHB 6"
41LC 185 gr FNHB 4.5"
41LC 215gr heeled RN 200 gr 7"
..22LR RN 7"
.22LR HP 3.5"
.223 55gr FMJ 10" (tumbled 3 shots out of 4)
9mm Para 147gr FMJ 11"
44spl 250 RN 9"
 
Jethunter; what sort of charge were you using behind the 38 spl and 41LC, the same charge on both? And what powder? Not trolling or being argumentative either, I am curious is all.
I would guess the given the larger Meplat on the 41 that it should not penetrate as far. But wouldn't that also mean the it would be transferring / expending it's energy more rapidly?
I was under the impression that the 41 LC ( all things being as equal as possible of course ) was a better manstopper than the 38 spl.
Of course it can't stand up to modern revolvers running 38 Spl+ loads, that goes without saying. But then again we are all referring to antiques, so of course police charges from modern revolvers are a moot point.
Again; this is a polite inquiry, I have no desire to argue...just discuss it with a peer is all.
 
tokguy said:
Jethunter; what sort of charge were you using behind the 38 spl and 41LC, the same charge on both? And what powder? Not trolling or being argumentative either, I am curious is all.
I would guess the given the larger Meplat on the 41 that it should not penetrate as far. But wouldn't that also mean the it would be transferring / expending it's energy more rapidly?
I was under the impression that the 41 LC ( all things being as equal as possible of course ) was a better manstopper than the 38 spl.
Of course it can't stand up to modern revolvers running 38 Spl+ loads, that goes without saying. But then again we are all referring to antiques, so of course police charges from modern revolvers are a moot point.
Again; this is a polite inquiry, I have no desire to argue...just discuss it with a peer is all.
Click to expand...

"Manstopping" is a very subjective subject and there are multiple variables and opinions to consider. I have never shot any one and I don't plan to do so. So I can't pretend to be an expert on the matter. When it comes to killing game animals, you have to penetrate and damage vitals to kill cleanly. Shot placement is 75% of the job. Generally a bullet that has enough energy to penetrate to vital organs is better than one that does not. My opinion.

But one thing we can probably all agree on is that neither the .41 colt or 38 special are going to make anyone's top ten list as a "manstopper". It's like talking about who was the best baseball pitcher in the NBA.
 
I see, so it's just a test medium, not calibrated ballistic gelatin, it's making a lot more sense to me and gotcha. I have probably too much big game shooting and wound examination experience here and abroad, just ask my wife! See www.morrisonarms.com for what I mean, that's me. I'm blessed to shoot as many head of big game in a good a year as many hunters do in a lifetime. I find ballistic gelatin and actual penetration are remarkably translatable, IF you don't connect with heavy bone. I've found lead bullets at moderate velocities of reasonable sectional density to be startlingly good penetrators, often found deep in the carcass, and the .41 was no exception. Enough so I've carried a .41 SAA in the cockpit for my northern flying for a few years with perfect confidence in it. On my site there, I also did a slightly modified spruce plank test on .22LR from a 4 3/4" and 10" barrel respectively with about ten different loads, they all provided far more substantial penetration than we're talking here, you must have one hell of a stiff gelatin mix!

tokguy I've killed a lot of things, and don't believe in "stopping power" (I'm the fella who just wrote the megafauna hunting article you kindly commented on for background). It's all shot placement, and penetration. Penetration can at times help you on less than ideal shot placement, but more importantly it will allow you to reach proper placement from more angles. No different with handguns, though I must admit my requirements are for killing things efficiently, not temporary stretch cavities and all that. I've never shot people in New York amped up on PCP, so there may be something to shock effect, I haven't seen it. A .38 with a 158gr LRN is just as lethal as a .45 ACP to me, and in my experience. Just has to be in the right place.
 
Last edited:
I don't know much about you and I don't actually care to. So there's no point in pounding your chest and bragging about your superiority. Sorry about that.

Your total scientific contribution to the conversation to that point was shooting fence posts and a cow but you have the arrogance to insult my methods simply because I don't agree with you. I have to ask: were the fence posts calibrated? :)

You did not answer whether you thought that 41 LC bullet had enough powers to pound through a beef rib and still penetrate vitals.
 
Funny, I was getting the same impression from you. :)

No need for hurt feelings now, your .455 bullets are great and I've enjoyed them and I'm sure your opinions are reasonable too. So, to get this straight as you're attacking my "scientific" input, you shot "something" made of gelatin, no specifications, video, or pictures provided, got a certain level of poor penetration and consider that the be all and end all. Sorry if I have trouble with that science, as well.

You stated, "if you have any big game experience," and I answered indeed, hundreds of animals worth at that. No interest in superiority, you asked, and I pointed out I have an extreme amount of experience with penetration and lethality, from African dangerous game to smaller critters on the farm. Shooting critters is my bread and butter. Spruce planks, thankfully have a known composition to all members reading here, they are made of spruce, Canada's most plentiful tree. I think we'd all be able to find the source and characteristics, your ballistic cement is a mystery, so far, but I'd like to learn more.

May the science continue, as I just realized we were talking scientifically. :cheers: Yes, I'm certain a .41 could go through a heavy rib and make it to the heart. So can a .22LR.
 
Re; "Ballistic cement". I've heard that term before. I was exploring materials to use as dividers at a range I belonged to at the time. A construction supplier told me he had "just the stuff", it was called Ballistic cement and was being used extesivly by the Canadian Forces oversees as a "camp perimeter and building protection " devise. He offered me a sheet to try out, it consisted of two panels of a concrete type material with 3" of some kind of a composite material between them. It came in 4x8 sheets

I set it up at home and shot it with the lightest load I had, .38sp, 130gr at less than 650 fps. from20 yrds...complete penetration, didn't even seem to slow the damn thing down!!

Next shot was from as much of an angle as I could get without shooting it end to end...again full penetration.

complete failure as a bullet stopper and if the CF are using it they've sure been fed a bunch of bull
 
only thing i would add when you say a 41lc would break a rib or get into vitals what distance are you shooting at ? A cow at a couple feet away is not a real test.
I know of a 45 schofield loaded with 6 grs of trail boss a 250 Gr keiths SWC can and has killed a full grown deer at close to 100 Yds from a 6 inch barreled gun, not by me this was in the USA where they can hunt with handguns. shot in the vitals

Thats a long shot with a antique revolver. I think the distance your shooting have to be mentioned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom