FFFg Black Powder Showdown 44 40 vs 45 Colt

This is the three F black powder test viewers asked for between the .44-40 and the .45 Colt. The results might surprise you. If it were 1880, now which sidearm would you choose?

[@TXGRunner]

I really enjoy these types of videos. I am also very envious of your career. I think the saying is something like "if you turn your hobby into your job, you'll never 'work' a day in your life."

[@hazcat640]

I like the 44-40 but if I have a choice I'll take the 45 if for no other reason than loading (reloading) straight wall is easier. 😉 Good info Dr. .

[@tjh44961]

I'd be interested to see a comparison in the rifle/carbine as well. Like a 24" barrel rifle vs. a 20" or 16" carbine. Seems like the 44-40 in the rifle would be a surprisingly flat-shooting round.

[@manuelmiguelestrada8049]

Very… very well done over two Iconic calibers for ammunition and one for also - a rifle. There is nothing like America.

[@roadrunner4404]

I love the 45LC pietta repro. Sure bucks with gf n 35 grains. Love it. Cylinder fouls up fast

[@coelagos8645]

Another great video, thank you. I'd be curious to see the 38 WCF thrown in that mix & a comparison with those three cartridges in similar rifles. I have rifles in all three calibers but different barrel lengths ranging 20" 24" & 30". It would also be interesting to see the ballistic difference between rifle & pistol barrel lengths with the three cartridges mentioned. Thanks again & keep up the good work.

[@TXGRunner]

Especially given the number of rifles and pistols available in 38-40, I agree, that would be very interesting to add to the mix. In modern cartridges, I am particularly fond of slightly smaller, faster projectiles like I get from 38 Super, 357 Sig, and 327 Fed Magnum. Of course, it's easy for us to say, "add this cartridge and these barrel lengths," but we're not paying for the guns or ammo. Here's hoping a big donor sends Doc a check for a thousands of dollars.

[@martinkavanagh196]

Thank You Todd .. I really enjoy your straight 'no bull' factual tests.

[@chrisgibson6960]

Lol, I don’t think anyone was fanning the hammer back in the day. Great video Todd.

[@snappers_antique_firearms]

If you ever cocked a 1st gen SAA with its stock springs. You 100% can't see fanning as being common or really used back in the 1800s. Maybe trick shooters with modified guns but the average person. i dont see them ever doing it with the high recoil and very heavy springs. I know there were guns called slip guns. they were a SAA with its trigger removed, where you fired it by dropping the hammer. But it seems they were fired with 2 hands. one to The hammer the other to hold the gun.

[@Everythingblackpowder]

Great video doc, today I testing some Black Powder 45 Colt with 40gr of 3F swiss, a 250gr rnfp in a 7.5 inch barrel SAA copy and got an average velocity of 1070fps. I think it shows that the quality of powder and barrel length can make a big difference in the performance.

[@cerescorubi]

I remember other sessions with 40 grains BP in 45 Colt having a little more velocity. Because of the spread it might be fun to try 6 more to see if you got the same average. Good test. With the different weight and diameter bullits I wonder on game if the heavier bullet at similar velocity might do more damage. OK, I love the 45 more.

[@daveyjoweaver6282]

What a great test and what great info! Kind Thanks, Many Blessings and Good Shootin! DaveyJO in Pennsylvania

[@exothermal.sprocket]

.44-40 with 40grains of BP, and a 200gr bullet was supposedly doing about 1,245 fps from a 20" carbine. It was originally a rifle cartridge. .45 Colt with 40grains of BP, and a 255gr bullet was supposedly doing about 1050 fps from a revolver. It of course wasn't chambered in a carbine until much later, due to the lack of extraction rim design. Your test: .161 SD in the 205gr .44-40 bullet. 995 fps average, 452 ft-lb energy, 29.14 ft-lb/sec. momentum. .175 SD in the 250gr ,45 Colt bullet. 877 fps average, 427 ft-lb energy, 31.32 ft-lb/sec. momentum. **Based on the the fact the .45 Colt has a greater sectional density and a greater momentum factor, I'd say the terminal performance would be greater than the .44-40 in spite the higher energy factor of the former. Energy numbers certainly don't tell the whole story.

[@Beuwen_The_Dragon]

Aye, my .45 colt push 255gr rnfp with 40 gr of 3f around 970fps out of my 7.5 inch uberti 1875 REM clone. They’re some thumpers.

[@idarolaflsvik9230]

Many thanks for a great scientific test of the 3F gunpowder (compared to the 2F in your previous video,) in 44-40 and 45 Long Colt! I was actually surprised by the result with the high velocity`s in 44-40. With the heavier bullet in the 45LC, the difference was not that significant. 3F powder gives more power in both caliber`s, thats for sure! My experience with 45LC and in terms of precision with smokeless gunpowder in a revolver, the lead-bullets will not follow the rifling properly, and lead the barrel when velocities approach 900 feet per second or so. In a rifle I still get good presision at 1200 ft/s. I use weel weights when casting bullets. Greetings from Idar Ola from Norway🤠

[@frontierwesternheritage1356]

Thanks Ola, I appreciate the information and you watching my videos. Todd

[@idarolaflsvik9230]

@@frontierwesternheritage1356 You're welcome Todd! Really appreciate what you do! Best regards from Idar Ola 🤠

[@BaddFrogg777]

Fun and excellent review as always. Thank you for sharing the information. We love this stuff. Peace

[@kentwilliams3326]

Very enjoyable and informative. Thanks. BTW - The audio was outstanding!

[@453421abcdefg12345]

The heavier bullet in the 45 seemed to give considerably more recoil, one advantage of videoing the session, but the extra energy from the 44 was a big surprise for me, I would have thought the heavier bullet would have given it a lot more energy, although the difference is admittedly quite small. Many thanks for posting this video of you having fun Todd! Chris B.

[@JarmoLaakso]

Heavy bullet does give a lot of momentum.

[@daveweed2765]

​@@JarmoLaakso Yeah but sometimes a lighter bullet with more velocity has more energy than a heavier projectile. But.... I would love to see an accuracy test of both guns with these loads. Without accuracy any gun is just an expensive noise maker. Which brings up another subject since he called the 2f accuracy loads, hunting. 3 inches at 150 yards can make the difference between a quick kill or tracking a blood trail or losing it and feeding the coyotes and buzzards.

[@landonsimpson7839]

Most tests ive seen have showed 45 colt coming ahead. The civilians had 3f loads available to them. The powder then was also better generally. The best commercially available today is swiss powder. I load 40 grain 3f loads with swiss under a 255 grain bullet. It gets 1050+ fps out a 7.5in barrel. Thats 624 ft-lbs

[@scvandy3129]

@@daveweed2765 " . . . 3 inches at 150 yards . . . " If the game warden [or a conscientious fellow hunter] caught you going for a kill on a deer at that distance with either of these revolvers, open sites, he or she would pull your tags. If 150 yards is the closest one can expect to get to the quarry, then by all means switch to a rifle.

[@daveweed2765]

@@scvandy3129 I was actually talking about rifles. You can legally hunt with a .44-40 black powder load. With a rifle it wouldn't drop that much at that distance and have more ftp of energy but still. In revolvers you lose a lot more energy than you would think. Also take a .223 Rem. You can load that particular round in an AR15 or Ruger Mini14 and you will drop more and lose more ftp at 300 yards than you would with a bolt action .223. Once the gas in the barrel on semi autos passes the tube where the gas runs into to work the bolt the projectile starts losing velocity with a hell of a lot of resistance to pass the muzzle point. Rifles? The longer the barrel the more velocity you keep gaining until it passes totally through. This only works on singles hot, lever actions and bolt action rifles though. Semi autos the shorter the barrel the more velocity just like revolvers. OK now the the pseudo science of shooting is over. No one in there right mind would take a shot at a deer with a revolver at 150 yards. As for law enforcement? The can't say anything because it is a centerfire fire arm. And honestly? At 150 yards with a .44 or even .45 in a revolver you wont even nick the deer. But yes you can legally hunt with it and take the shot and the law can't say anything. Ethics? Well you won't hit anything with a revolver at that distance even on a rest and or holding it in two hands.

[@TheHappy2cu]

Fun video. Thanks Doc.

[@steveferris663]

I always love your videos!

[@frontierwesternheritage1356]

Thanks Steve. I appreciate you watching. Todd

[@l.a.3887]

Grate testing good job thanks 👍

[@steveshoemaker6347]

That is a powerful load round and excellent video.....Thanks Todd very much 👍 Old F-4 Shoe🇺🇸

[@scvandy3129]

Wow, very interesting; fascinating; so, a hearty Thank You, Frontier Western Heritage. LOVE that smoke. Regarding the surprisingly punishing recoil of the .44-40 made worse by the carved, eagle grips for the length of the demonstration wearing gloves would protect the more delicate part of the skin. Since accuracy wasn't the objective the glove's tendency to lessen the ideal 'hold' would not be an issue. Speaking of frontier, film makers who do the rare movie and TV westerns today should take a look at this 16-minute report to be reminded -- or informed for the first time -- just how much smoke there was 'back in the day.' Unlike filmed westerns of the first half of the 20th Century where everything was black powder, quite often 'full' loads, as the western genre lost its favor with Hollywood, when a western was shot too often the prop man and / or armorer had switched to smokeless powder, essentially minimizing the BIG effect of the blast of smoke. Or, if they 'stayed true' with black powder 1/2 loads and 1/4 loads would be 'the order of the day.' TMI: One of the standard rules was when working around horses 1/2 loads; when shooting interiors in a confined space 1/4 loads -- protecting the hearing of horses and actors both. Night scenes required a different blank that gave off a bigger flash (of light), being more significant than smoke which couldn't be seen nearly as clearly as in daytime. Final thought -- FINALLY for some of you -- for those of us who would be interested to see a similar comparison with the normal factory loads, e.g., Winchester's Super X and Silver Tip Hollow Points , caliber vs. caliber THEN a separate comparison / contrast within each caliber, normal rounds to the CAS variety. If by chance that has already been achieved and posted on KZbin by another enterprising shooter, good with numbers, then 'Replying' here with the link info would be greatly appreciated. "Happy Shooting, All."

[@jamesharrison2374]

Have a Uberti 45lc 7th Calvary SAA, full douse was 42gr WASG 3fg, magnum primers, rim rock 255gr Bo lubed kicked like a mule. Normal shooting is 12gr, 15gr grits, paper wad, and lube wad, with the 255gr Bp lubed nullet.

[@snappers_antique_firearms]

Very interesting video.

[@bustabass9025]

Watched your other video on these two revolvers. In the process of gathering info for the purchase of my first SAA revolver. Subscribing for the content, enjoying and appreciating your presentations.

[@frontierwesternheritage1356]

Thanks for the kind comments. You really can't go wrong with either caliber. But if you want to match it to a rifle, and historical correctness is a goal, go with the 44-40 because Winchester didn't chamber any models in 45 Colt. If a little historically inaccuracy doesn't bother you, either caliber is great. Todd

[@sasquatch885]

Recoil was surprising to me too.👍🏻

[@johnpalmer7272]

Good job

[@jeffshootsstuff]

I was wondering how you mashed 40 grains in modern cases, until I heard you used a compression die. That's a heck of a load!

[@usualsuspect5173]

If you're gonna use a compression die you might as well use 4F powder cuz you're breaking your powder kernels down anyway

[@kentwilliams3326]

Having watched both FF and FFF tests it seems to me (using the bucket for reference to your right front) that the FFF exhibited more recoil, especially with the .44-40. As I recall, the cavalry preferred the .45 Schofield ammo and also used a down loaded the .45-70 to 55 grains by using a cork filler.

[@kareldebures7006]

Interesting comparison, and both are still a hoss!

[@MultiDryder]

The main reason for the popularity of the 44-40 was not just the versatility but also back in the day cartridges were not standardized like today so it wasnt as easy to find ammo in guns you wanted to needed like it is today Back in those days so many different cartridges were being made and phased out but nowadays if you are trying to find 9mm its easy but back then because both 45 colt and 44-40 were popular they were more common which is why these two cartridges were the cartridges that won the west

[@frontierwesternheritage1356]

Good point. The further on the frontier, the narrower your choice of in-stock items were. Hand loaders helped, but still not a wide choice depending on where you lived. Thanks for watching, Todd

[@williampollock1274]

I really would like to see a test done with 3f. It would be interesting to see the difference.🤔

[@silenceismycanvas]

I'd recommend using a constant of 450,400 in ballistic calculations. You used 2 different ones with FF & FFF comparison videos. It wouldn't have made a big difference at all, but I guess that's the geek in me. Great comparisons and great video!

[@ronrobertson59]

I'd be interested to see what 40gr of 3F powder in a 44-40 out of the1873 rifle compared to factory pressure smokeless. I have an 1860 Henry and an 1866 in 45LC and my 1873 is in 357/38spl. I'm thinking about a rifle in 44-40 but hate to reload 44-40 I damage too many expensive cases. Great video

[@rjoetting7594]

Have you ever used the Taylor KO formula? The Taylor KO factor multiplies bullet mass (measured in grains) by muzzle velocity (measured in feet per second) by bullet diameter (measured in inches) and then divides the product by 7,000, In this formula, the 45 colt sill has the advantage. Personally, I would not feel under armed with either unless I was protecting myself from a big four-legged critter who wanted to have me for lunch, hahaha I did enjoy the video, and I'm looking forward to the next one.

[@tracyclaystowell6431]

You said it, I think the velocity deference in the two is the amount of compression of the powder. If you increased the compression on the 45( it might take an addition of half a grain) it would probably increase the load and best the 44. JMHO, lol. Clay

[@melwestlake8539]

Loved the videos. Those loads buck! I think for historical accuracy the question would be what was the standard velocity for those in the 1800s? Then compare from there. Or was the FFg the standard loads then? Those velocities seemed more historically accurate. For shootability either cartridge is about the same. Energy on human targets not a tone of difference. I'm curious about rifle/carbine velocities. I know the .45 Colt was never in a lever gun until the the more recent reproductions but if the .45 would have worked in the Winchesters and Marlins of the day I'm sure many would have used that combo. All gun nerd stuff but isn't that half the fun?? If this were 1880 it would be the 44 WCF to have the rifle chambered the same. Today, likely the 45 Colt with the rifle in 45 as well.

[@KJ-qr9sm]

Drop them both to 200 grains and retest with 40 grains. Love the vid my guy.

[@steveww1507]

love the 44/40 cartridge

[@tomgoodwin9161]

Many years ago the late Skeeter Skelton related a story about the .44-40 being tried out as soon as it became available. The shooter was I believe, the Texas Ranger James B. Gillette. (Could be wrong about that. It's been a long time). Anyway, he bought a brand new Colt Single Action and on the first shot, the primer flowed into the firing pin hole and bound up the gun. He struggled to cock the gun and shear off the primer; thereafter he re-swapped for another .45 and warned all his friends about the 44-40. I am not surprised; quality control was probably not too great in those days and there was no reference to the brand of ammunition used. It would definitely have been a confidence destroyer for sure. With good primers things would have been different I'm sure.

[@frontierwesternheritage1356]

Thanks Tom, If my life regularly depended on my gun, the above experience would send me back to a 45 Colt as well. Thanks for watching, Todd

[@lawrencehudson9939]

I preferred 3F but was happy with 2F in my cowboy guns in fact if I had to choose (component shortage anyone) I would buy the 2F because of my 12 Ga. load requirements.

[@mkshffr4936]

That 44 was pretty zippy. It would be interesting to load up the 44 to the same sectional density and aee gow the velocity would compare to the 45. To do that we need a .427 bullet of 220-225 grains. I don't think energy is really important in handguns. Either one of these packs a pretty good wallop. TKO calculations would be interesting.

[@davidno1minton997]

Cool,job

[@barrysmith4528]

If you would have added fillers in the 45 & compressed it the same as the 44 the out come would be the 45 on top ! Bullet weight makes a difference also !

[@bunkstagner298]

being shot by either one would leave a mark on you no doubt. Thanks an interesting comparison

[@rayc.1396]

Very interesting Tod, try 70 grains of 3f volume in your Sharps with a 500+ grain slug. I measure my 45-70 BP loads by bruise rating, 2f is sore, 3f is black and blue with a little yellow the next morning.

[@usualsuspect5173]

Why? The 45-70 Gov. Load designation is based on the original very thin , flimsy foil type cases before they came up with the brass we're more familiar with the powder charge was closer to 60 to 65 grains of 3F type BP.

[@rayc.1396]

So, I use 70 grains of 2 f, burns cleaner and seems to be all around better than the 3f I have used. I also use a grease cookie over the over powder card. @@usualsuspect5173

[@davidslone9776]

I have never been able to get 40 grains of 3F in a modern solid-head brass cartridge for the .44-40. I had some old "balloon-head" cases that I could stuff 40 grains of 3F in, but I have never been able to get the full 40 grains in a modern .44-40 case. At the most, as I compress the powder, I can get 36, or 37 grains in, and then seat the bullet. Maybe the weather is different down here, than in Montana. I don't know. I must be doing something wrong.

[@frontierwesternheritage1356]

Thanks David, I never thought about the weather. It is very dry here. But I also think it depends on the powder density. I measured by weigh instead of volume and compressed the heck out of it. I was a little concerned that I was bulging the cases, but they chambered okay. I don't think you're doing something wrong. Your loads are a little more realistic for today's cases. Thanks for watching, Todd

[@steveferris663]

Great video; but, I’ll still load with FFg. I feel the FFg is more consistent than the FFFg IMHO. I’d be interested in the SD on each.

[@richardmaschi5025]

This is very interesting. Thank you. I wonder if the bigger diameter of the 45 colt even though moving a little slower would attribute to a little more so-called killing power or stopping power. I guess we have to have some kind of way to measure this. Just wondering about a real life situation

[@frontierwesternheritage1356]

I really don't think it makes that much difference honestly. The guy on the receiving end won't care. The .45 Colt cartridge today, however, is offered in a greater variety of loads. So in a modern sense, it's the better choice. I have a fondness for the 44-40 and hand load what I want. It's a bias of mine. Thanks for watching, Todd

[@davidfreeman2522]

I imagine you're getting higher pressure out of the 44-40 having to compress it so much more. Seeing I don't shoot black powder . I'm just going by using smokeless powders.

[@HiVizJoe]

If I’m lucky I only get at most 300 foot pounds of energy from my Winchester super X .45 Colt 250 grain smokeless factory cowboy loads that I shoot from my Uberti 1858 new model army revolver using my Howell drop in .45 Colt cylinder. Mike Beliveau on his Duelist1954 channel did a similar comparison test with similar results to what you got

[@glennsammon4465]

makes me wonder what 4F would do.

[@thompsonjerry3412]

Did you weight your charges or use volume? By weight all granulation shave the same energy and by using high compression the grain size should be meaningless.

[@usualsuspect5173]

Exactly, might as well use 4F powder if you're going to crush your 3F

[@rookriflerookrifle8286]

👍👍

[@craigcook1571]

Maybe that’s why Ned Christie preferred the .44-40

[@neelsmuller3716]

I am so surprised……I love to see the same in the 1873 rifles

[@frontierwesternheritage1356]

I'm reading comments from the bottom to the top. I hope you say my 1873 video testing the same 44-40 load. Thanks for watching, Todd

[@harrisonlewis6853]

But your 44-40 bullet weight is 205 gun. and your .45colt bullet weight in at 250 gun. Maybe lighter bullet delivers more foot pounds of energy than the heavier bullet.

[@harrisonlewis6853]

Stupid spell checker gun=grn.

[@Dani-pe2lt]

Really interesting!!

[@peterwright217]

👍👍👍👍👍👍

[@noahmercy-mann4323]

My CAS BP load is 40 grains of the old Goex Cowboy and a 260 grain RNFP cast from a Lee mould. I shoot them from a pair of Ruger Vaquero Birdshead Sheriff models with 3 1/2" barrels. It's fun to touch of a few and hear all the coughing and whining from the peanut gallery...😂

[@bigtrucklittlerv7969]

FFF has faster pressure curve. 45 FFF in the 45 Colt will do the same.

[@stepabove2136]

Would you be interested in trying some fffg in swiss black powder I could donate you some I live in anaconda were not very far from each other 😮.

[@Darkmoonvid]

But the .45 was shooting a 250 grain bullet and the .44-40 was shooting a 205 grain bullet. Match the grains and the.45 would do much better than the .44-40.

[@kentwilliams3326]

I think that the whole purpose was to accurately match the 3F loads to the historical equivalent for a true comparison.

[@landonsimpson7839]

This was a surprising test, most other tests Ive seen show that the 45 colt still out preforms 44-40. Like I also load my own 40 grain 3f loads of 45 colt. Replicating some civilian loads of the time. Because there were lots of different loads. The military used 2f usually, and Ive heard they even mixed 2f with 3f. 2f was available for civilians, and so was 3f. Powder back then was generally alot better than what we have today. The best powder commercially available is swiss and thats what I use. Out of my 7.5 in barrel. I get 1050+fps with a 255 grain bullet. Thats 624ft-lbs

[@FritoPendejo684]

Sure, by ft/lbs. But the 44 would have a notable advantage in sectional density if you matched bullet weight, which should give it a pretty good leg up in penetration. All a matter of which criteria you're prioritizing.

[@doranmaxwell1755]

I wish I could like either or both the 45 Colt or the 44-40.. cut my teeth on 44 mag guns.. And 44 spl.. So why not the 45 Colt? bigger bore in the cyl means weaker for one thing. Case capacity for medium power loads... And back in the day the brass was never consistent so far as rims at least. Plus? it looked too much like a 44 mag case and for handloaders? Lets just say I would never shoot 45 Colt and 44 mag in the same session. I do not own a 45 colt gun now.. last one was a DA smith. 44-40 Again... odd .427 bullet and of course the whole necked case with its paper thin rim. handloading curse causer... I own one old Navy arms 1873 Winchester that is so nice in a 'presentation' grade that it is worth the hassle. My Ubertis 1873 are in .357 and 44 spl.. the 44 spl in 4 3/4" and being right up their with the most accurate handguns I own

[@sr633]

A 44 40 seems like a 22 in a rifle..

[@frontierwesternheritage1356]

Watch the rifle comparison. You'd be surprised by the velocity. Although not a high-powered rifle by any stretch. Thanks for watching, Todd