.45LC hands down
.45LC hands down
I'd like to get a .357 lever one day, but that "same caliber" convenience for your revolver and carbine is nice.
And I much prefer a big bore, .44 or .45 in a handgun.
A .357 sixgun just never has felt right to me, must be that extra metal in the barrel and cylinder.
Nothing feels as nice, balance and handling as a .45 Peacemaker.
And if you had to shoot deer or use the SA or lever for self defense, I'd prefer a .452" bullet that is 225 to 270 grains than one that is .357 diameter and 125 to 180 grains.
https://i.imgur.com/LFyrmDxh.jpg
I'm in the .357 boat. It's a much more common caliber nowadays. Likewise, the variety of loads you can put together for it is staggering.
.45 LC for a few reasons.
1. Higher resale and collectability.
2. Slightly more power can do anything practically needed in a carbine.
3. Nostalgia
4. When the Texas Ranger was asked why he carried a 45, he said because they did not make a 46.
I agree with Barr
Also I feel the 45 colt has more range in loading options
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
357 hands down. If I could only have one cartridge it would be 357 for rifles and pistols. If I am not mistaken Skeeter Skelton felt similarly.
45 colt..would probably be my last pick.
Revolvers in 45 are too big/heavy
Brass is of dubious strength
Bullet designs are too heavy to have good SD...velocities too low to make it flat shooting at "rifle ranges"
If I wanted a big bore levergun...45-70!
I've never seen a deer fail to go down from a well placed .357 of 158 grains or greater.
If I'm not mistaken the heavier bullet will have better SD.
Riddle me this:
What has a greater Sectional Density, a 180 grain .357 Magnum or a 220 grain 10mm???
Yes, that is the point, but I am not sure what 10mm has to do with anything.
To have the same SD as 357 Mag 158 grain with a 45 Colt you are using a 255 grain bullet. With a 180 grain 357 Mag, a very reasonable weight for a rifle and deer, you would need a 292 grain bullet for the colt...with book loads safe for all revolvers this would maybe be going 1000 FPS. If you over load it for the rifle, it still won't go faster than a 357.
If you want a bigger bore carbine then get a 44 mag. That way you will not worry about brass and any revolver out there will be strong enough and could use the same ammo as the rifle.
I'm not sure what loading for pistols has to do with it. The OP is speaking of rifles.
In my opinion there is no real need to match sectional density when you are shooting a .45 caliber bullet at small game and deer. I'm thinking most any 45 caliber bullet will have adequate penetration on a deer.
Isn't the whole point of a revolver caliber carbine that the ammo can be used in the carbine AND a revolver? The venerable lever carbine cartridge, 30-30, blows them all out of the water. Even magnum big bores like 450 Bushmaster.
The larger the caliber, the lower the sectional density and ballistic coefficient for a given weight, and the lower the penetration. A 155 grain 45 caliber bullet will not penetrate nearly as well as a 155 grain 357. It will also lose velocity faster traveling through the air and be far less likely to expand by the time it reaches the target. If I wanted roundball/blackpowder performance from my lever gun I'd shoot my flintlock!
The greater velocity and sectional density the lesser the drop and greater the penetration and expansion. Especially in a rifle at those velocities, where ballistic coefficients matter and expansion is reliable, the 357 is at great advantage over the old 45. The platform where a 45 might have an advantage is in a revolver due to it just having a much greater frontal area. But even then I've achieved greater than .454 epansion from every 357 caliber hollowpoint I've ever shot into a water/mud/deer. Most of the time it is closer to .5 or .6, even out of my 38 Snubnose!
Another bonus...the ammo weighs about half as much and is comfortable in a shirt pocket. Something I learned from my days with a 44 Mag is the ammo behaved like a sack of doorknobs in your pocket. 45 would be worse.
If this discussion is about choosing either one of these cartridges for a rifle ( which it is ) why limit yourself to low power loads. The 45 colt in a strong rifle can be loaded to the equivilant of a 44 mag. Now you can't honestly tell me that a 357 mag is superior to a 44 mag or a hot loaded 45 colt.
The fact remains that all handgun bullets have poor B.C. and when used within its limits of around 100 yards the ballistic coefficient of a bullet is not much to consider.
Both rounds used within their effective range will have enough power and shoot flat enough to harvest game. Both are fun to shoot and cheap to reload for. Just don't try to convince me that a 357 mag is a better killer than a properly loaded 45 colt. The 357 will never grow bigger but you can certainly load a 45 in a rifle to be something a 357 can't compare to.
Amen !Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginsing
.357. I already cast and load .357s. Handy and fun for the whole family, including my 10 y.o.
Since I haven't faced a charging hord of Sioux or Cheyenne lately, I would say neither. My pick would be .44/40 or .41 magnum to go with my favorite revolvers. james
I had a Rossi 92 Trapper in 45 Colt. Never shot it all that much. Then I was cleaning out my loading room and found several partial boxes of "Ruger Only" 45 Colt loads with heavy (300-325 grain) bullets. In that little 4 1/2 pound levergun with a steel buttplate, those loads made me consider taking up a new hobby. The recoil was so violent I got blood blisters on my fingertips when recoil ripped the forearm up and out of my hand (Rossi's have a sharp edge at the top of the forearm).
I sold that one, and now I'm looking for another 45 Colt levergun. This one will see loads that are safe in a flat top Ruger or a S&W 45. I'm looking for an 1866 or 1873 to make sure.
My pick is the 357, in comparison to what I mentioned above, it has the recoil of a 22 and hits like a 30-30. I have 4 boxes of 357 Nosler Partition bullets set aside in case I ever need them.