The .45 Super

[Jeff Higgins]

I just finished reading Layne Simpson's article on this cartridge in this month's Handloader. While I pride myself in knocking around in the nether reaches and dark corners of the shooting world, I quite honestly had never heard of this round. And, well, reading about it kind of concerns me.

It is exactly what its name implies - a high performance .45 caliber pistol cartridge in the same vein as the old .38 Super. Like the .38 Super, it operates at much higher pressures than its parent chambering, the venerable .45 ACP. Except, unlike the .38 Super vs its parent, the .380 ACP, it is the exact same length as the .45 ACP. Which means it will chamber in any pistol that will chamber .45 ACP.

This is not good. This is really not good. Pistols meant for this .45 Super must feature the "fully supported chamber" design wherein the entire feed ramp is integral to the barrel. "Standard" 1911's have a split feed ramp, with the bottom half being the top front of the mag well (part of the frame), and the other half being in the bottom of the rear of the barrel.

This "split ramp" design leaves a good deal of the web area on the cartridge case unsupported. High pressure rounds will blow this part of the case out, usually blowing the magazine out through the bottom, splitting the frame and grip, severely injuring the shooter's hand. This happened far too often when guys were loading the bejeezus out of their .38 Supers and 9 x 21 mm's in an effort to "make major" in IPSC competition. A lot of guys got hurt before they went to fully supported chambers. The goodness that came out of this, fully supported chambers for the .38 Super and 9 x 21, worked in a large part because these two rounds are too long to fit 9mm Luger (9 x 19 mm) chambers. This .45 Super, however, does not utilize this principle, so anyone with a standard .45 ACP can inadvertently chamber and try to fire one.

This same principle has been in use in the revolver world, with the .38 and .44 Specials and their respective magnums, the .357 Mag and .44 Mag. It's a proven concept - add some case length to the higher pressure round to preclude its use in unsuitable guns. Why anyone, in this day and age, would elect not to do anything like this in the case of this .45 Super baffles me. And I want nothing to do with it...

[KFC911]

No interest whatsoever here, but why do they call it Super instead of .45 ACP Magnum? Sounds totally dangerous ... unless they are already protected from legal liability, I bet Jackie Chiles is licking his chops!

[id10t]

The only time close similarity in dimensions that allows interchangeability is good is when the stronger can't fit into the weaker at all (ie, 38spl vs 357mag) or when the pressures etc are all so close it doesn't really matter (762 Tokarev and 30 Mauser)

[masraum]

That sounds like a really bad idea. 38/44 specials vs magnums have been around so long, you'd have thought that was a simple idea to follow/copy.

[tadd]

I feed this through both my HK pistol and USP carbine. It is ';super' cause it is a different case than standard .45. So it is not a + or ++ load.

Stuff rocks.

The case is different from standard .45. It has a thicker bottom so it can handle higher pressures.

The big thing I have followed from its use is making sure that the gun being fed with it has springs able to deal with the bigger energic loading.

[dtxscott]

Originally Posted by KC911

No interest whatsoever here, but why do they call it Super instead of .45 ACP Magnum? Sounds totally dangerous ... unless they are already protected from legal liability, I bet Jackie Chiles is licking his chops!

The .45 Win Mag already exists. It was most notably picked up in the LAR Grizzly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAR_Grizzly_Win_Mag

Mucho Kicko with the Griz!

[id10t]

Originally Posted by dtxscott

The .45 Win Mag already exists. It was most notably picked up in the LAR Grizzly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAR_Grizzly_Win_Mag

Mucho Kicko with the Griz!

Yup, 308/30-06 case cut down to size... like the 44 automag, 475 Wildey, etc.

Biggest problem for traditional style pistols is overall length of the round because the mag fits in the grip.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by tadd

I feed this through both my HK pistol and USP carbine. It is ';super' cause it is a different case than standard .45. So it is not a + or ++ load.

Stuff rocks.

The case is different from standard .45. It has a thicker bottom so it can handle higher pressures.

The big thing I have followed from its use is making sure that the gun being fed with it has springs able to deal with the bigger energic loading.

Yes, the case is different internally. It is indeed thicker in the web area. The external dimensions are, however, identical to the old .45 ACP. Again, this allows it to be chambered in any old 1911, with an unsupported portion in the lower chamber.

It does not matter one whit how much stronger the brass may be if it is left unsupported in this manner. While perfectly safe in pistols and carbines will fully supported chambers, this is incredibly dangerous in chambers that are not fully supported.

I would assume both your Glock and your USP carbine feature fully supported chambers, so of course you would have no trouble.

[Tobra]

Tadd seems to have entirely missed the point of this thread.

Never heard of .45 Super before, sounds like this would create some significant liability issues.

[Jeff Higgins]

Naw, I think that's a bit harsh, Toby. It sounds like he has guns in which this is not an issue, and understands the need for heavier recoils springs so they cycle properly.

But, yeah - liability. Maybe not a big deal when this was a hand loading only gig, but at least one company offers it commercially. Then again, Buffalo Bore has long offered both .45-70 and .45 Colt loads well in excess of SAAMI pressure limits, for use in modern firearms. Their stuff would destroy any original Trapdoor or Colt revolver. Yet they have sold it for years, and yes, it does fit these older guns.

I fire a lot of both of those rounds both in notably weak vintage guns and in very strong modern guns. What I have done, for my own safety, is load the high pressure stuff in such a manner so that it will not even chamber in the old guns. The cases are identical, but I use bullet selection to preclude mixing them up.

Here is an illustration of what I do. Two revolvers chambered in .45 Colt, one a modern Interarms Virginian Dragoon cable of accepting 30,000 psi loads. The other is an original Colt, limited to about half of that. The size difference is readily apparent in the following photos:





In the photo below, you can see that the round on the left is notably longer than the one on the right. It is loaded with a 300 grain bullet pushed to over 1,200 fps. The round on the right is the classic, original load featuring a 250 grain bullet at about 900 fps. The one on the left will stick out of the front of the Colt cylinder, so the cylinder wouldn't even turn. Oh, and notice the difference in wall thickness around the chambers. Coupled with a different alloy and heat treat, that Dragoon cylinder is a good deal stronger than the Colt.



Buffalo Bore doesn't do this, which I think is absolutely irresponsible. The old .454 Casull is essentially a ".45 Colt Magnum", and it does indeed use a longer case. Thank God - that thing runs at up to 60,000 psi, more than most bolt action rifles. So, more than one way to skin a cat, and it seems to me they should have used one or the other.

[id911T]

.45 Super has been around for decades, 30+ years or so. I suppose it's on the gun owner to know what ammo is appropriate for their gun. Seems like a lot of hand wringing in this thread over something that has been a non-issue for a long time.

The .460 Rowland (which operates at even higher pressures) does exactly as you suggest, the case is 1/16" longer.

[Por_sha911]

I recently bought a Ruger Blackhawk Flat Top New Model with 45 ACP and 45 Colt cylinders. I did some research to find that my particular revolver has a medium frame which can handle hot loads BUT the cylinder walls are thinner. The 'New Models' aren't as strong as the original Blackhawks. As such, I only shoot SAAMI loads.

Now here's the kicker: most ammo manufacturers don't publish the psi of their rounds. I found some Underwood 45 Colts which were higher fps and muzzle velocity but still 14,000 psi (Underwood also makes +P hot loads). Since none of the info on the box or website gave the psi, I called them to be sure I was using safe ammo. As already stated, +P and Buffalo Bore "++P" ammo will fit my revolver but I am not interested in blowing up the cylinder.

Unfortunately, some folks "get them a gun and wanna shoot somethin" without proper instruction or understanding. When it comes to hot loads, they can qualify for the Darwin Award fairly quickly.

+P ammo has been around for a long time. I shoot +P in my 9mm (not quite the same as Buffalo Bore though). I have to imagine that the ammo manufacturers would have been sued by now. I know that Underwood puts a disclaimer on their website for +P (aka 'Ruger Only') ammo saying you have to have a large frame revolver but it takes a lot more time and effort to really understand.

[red-beard]

Why not neck the cartridge down? You could go to .44 or .40 or 10mm...Then could you have a 10mm Super for your 1911. Go for .357 Sig velocities with a lightweight .40 caliber bullet.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by id911T

.45 Super has been around for decades, 30+ years or so. I suppose it's on the gun owner to know what ammo is appropriate for their gun. Seems like a lot of hand wringing in this thread over something that has been a non-issue for a long time.

Dean Grennell developed it in 1988 so, yes, it's been around for awhile. That does not make it a good idea. And, yes, it is entirely incumbent upon the shooter to know what is appropriate for his or her firearm. And if you think this is, or has been a "non-issue", you have simply not been paying attention. Less than knowledgeable shooters, and unlucky bystanders, get seriously injured by these "non-issues". It's best to have insurmountable "mechanical controls" that will absolutely prevent this.

Oh, and as an aside, anyone who would characterize safety concerns such as this as "hand wringing" probably shouldn't be allowed around firearms. You certainly would never be allowed on my club range.

Originally Posted by id911T

The .460 Rowland (which operates at even higher pressures) does exactly as you suggest, the case is 1/16" longer.

Yes, there are a number of similar cartridges that employ this sort of mechanical control. Always a good idea. In light of this, there really is no excuse for the .45 Super.

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

I recently bought a Ruger Blackhawk Flat Top New Model with 45 ACP and 45 Colt cylinders. I did some research to find that my particular revolver has a medium frame which can handle hot loads BUT the cylinder walls are thinner. The 'New Models' aren't as strong as the original Blackhawks. As such, I only shoot SAAMI loads.

You are partially correct. New Model Blackhawks are actually stronger than original three screw Blackhawks. They use the larger frame of the original Super Blackhawk in .44 Magnum. Ruger originally made two frame sizes, the smaller Blackhawk for the .357 and .41 magnums, and the .45 Colt. The larger Super Blackhawk chambered the .44 magnum.

When they went to the two screw (actually pins) and transfer bar, they consolidated all of their Blackhawks on the Super Blackhawk sized frame, making it unnecessarily large for the smaller calibers. All modern transfer bar Blackhawks and Super Blackhawks now share this large frame. Ruger fans clamored for a reissue of the original small frame guns, with the result being the new "Flat top". As an aside, the New Vaquero is downsized from the first generation (built on the large frame) as well, and is much closer to the size of the old Colt Peacemaker as a result.

So we are now back to two sizes of Blackhawk - the small frame Flat Top and New Vaquero, and the standard Blackhawk/Super Blackhawk that share the large frame. The New Vaqueros and Flat Tops are still a good deal stronger than the Colt, but not as strong as the Blackhawk/Super Blackhawk.

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

Now here's the kicker: most ammo manufacturers don't publish the psi of their rounds. I found some Underwood 45 Colts which were higher fps and muzzle velocity but still 14,000 psi (Underwood also makes +P hot loads). Since none of the info on the box or website gave the psi, I called them to be sure I was using safe ammo. As already stated, +P and Buffalo Bore "++P" ammo will fit my revolver but I am not interested in blowing up the cylinder.

I admire your prudence. I bet you still have all of your fingers, and both eyes. But, yes, your new Flat Top will happily digest "+P" and "+P+" loads all day long without any trouble. Its cylinder is shorter than the full size Blackhawk. I know my own 300 grain loads, meant for my full size Blackhawks, are too long for my New Vaquero. Not sure about the commercial stuff, like Buffalo Bore. I would hope it is.

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

Unfortunately, some folks "get them a gun and wanna shoot somethin" without proper instruction or understanding. When it comes to hot loads, they can qualify for the Darwin Award fairly quickly.

I have been at this long enough to have personally been there when guns have blown up. I've been involved in too many "after action debriefs" at my club in the wake of these incidents. People have been very, very seriously hurt. It's easy to say "they had it coming", but most often they did not. And they are still hurt. Due diligence is demanded, of course, but the industry can - and has - done things to help. As well they should.

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

+P ammo has been around for a long time. I shoot +P in my 9mm (not quite the same as Buffalo Bore though). I have to imagine that the ammo manufacturers would have been sued by now. I know that Underwood puts a disclaimer on their website for +P (aka 'Ruger Only') ammo saying you have to have a large frame revolver but it takes a lot more time and effort to really understand.

I'm a huge advocate for personal responsibility. I don't think anyone should be able to sue when they make this kind of a mistake, especially with the packaging as clearly labeled as it is today. Shooting is serious business, and needs to be treated with respect. Far more so than most endeavors.

[id911T]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Oh, and as an aside, anyone who would characterize safety concerns such as this as "hand wringing" probably shouldn't be allowed around firearms. You certainly would never be allowed on my club range.

Ha, ok. Guess those of us who have been shooting and loading this cartridge for years will keep doing so. Carry on.

[KFC911]

I purchased my .45 ACP forty years ago, already had a .357 and a .44 mag came later. But I'm not one to go to ranges, or interact with other shooters except on PPOT. I had NO idea that a cartridge was sold that would fit in my magazines yet be unsafe in my Colt .... so I welcome the hand-wringing ninny's that keep me informed .

Folks that are really into it may already know this stuff .... the rest are just like me... stoopid .

[tadd]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Yes, the case is different internally. It is indeed thicker in the web area. The external dimensions are, however, identical to the old .45 ACP. Again, this allows it to be chambered in any old 1911, with an unsupported portion in the lower chamber.

It does not matter one whit how much stronger the brass may be if it is left unsupported in this manner. While perfectly safe in pistols and carbines will fully supported chambers, this is incredibly dangerous in chambers that are not fully supported.

I would assume both your Glock and your USP carbine feature fully supported chambers, so of course you would have no trouble.

So color me confused. What is the issue with unsupported cases? My old MAC10 is open bolt and the .45 case balloons as it cycles... you just don't reload those. I go to great trouble to clean up after using that weapon. That one actually the hotter the ammo, the better it runs.

I do get your issue, but its not like the market is flooded with the stuff. I usually get mine from Midway and there are only a few brands. It is also pricey running around $1.35 a round. I think the cheapest I have purchased pre covid was .89 a round.

What is so nice about the super is that it shoots so flat. It is almost a foot in height on the target between super and Walmart Winchester plinking rounds... and that is in the pistol.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by id911T

Ha, ok. Guess those of us who have been shooting and loading this cartridge for years will keep doing so. Carry on.

Absolutely. As you should. But you are not the problem, and therefor not the focus of this discussion. You know what you are doing with it, use it in the proper firearms, and will never have any trouble. You have my full support.

The danger lies in the duffer who has no idea using it in his standard 1911. He will get hurt, or hurt someone else. There is nothing to physically prevent him from doing so. That's my only beef with this.

And sorry I came on so strong. Gun safety is admittedly a "hot button" issue for me. To blow our concerns off as "hand wringing" seems inappropriate.

Originally Posted by tadd

So color me confused. What is the issue with unsupported cases? My old MAC10 is open bolt and the .45 case balloons as it cycles... you just don't reload those. I go to great trouble to clean up after using that weapon. That one actually the hotter the ammo, the better it runs.

That's a great question. These are two different issues, with misleading similarities.

The MAC10 does not lock up in any way whatsoever, as you know. It relies entirely upon the inertia of the bolt to slow down its cyclic rate and to prevent the bolt from opening when pressures remain too high. The 1911, in contrast, keeps the slide and frame joined during the initial part of their rearward travel, allowing pressures to drop to a safe level before disconnecting the two. That's what the little link under the barrel does.

The MAC10, in the interest of surety of function over anything else, actually opens a bit too soon, resulting in the bulged cases you see. This is important, however - pressures have dropped below the yield point of the cases. The case is, in fact, fully supported at the time of firing, at the highest point in the pressure curve. So they bulge, but they won't burst. And yes, believe it or not, they can be reloaded. Case life is shortened, but you can still get plenty of reloads out of them.

The 1911 is a whole different story. The unsupported part of the case is unsupported during the highest pressure phase of the ignition cycle, from the moment when the firing pin hits. And therein lies the danger. The pressures generated by the .45 Super exceed even what its thicker brass will hold if it is unsupported.

Originally Posted by tadd

I do get your issue, but its not like the market is flooded with the stuff. I usually get mine from Midway and there are only a few brands. It is also pricey running around $1.35 a round. I think the cheapest I have purchased pre covid was .89 a round.

Agreed, but I subscribe to Murphy's Law. And I've seen shooters get hurt at my range, I've even driven one to the hospital. And I've just heard of too many accidents. Or, more precisely, incidents brought about through carelessness. Like I said above, gun safety is a real hot button issue for me.

Originally Posted by tadd

What is so nice about the super is that it shoots so flat. It is almost a foot in height on the target between super and Walmart Winchester plinking rounds... and that is in the pistol.

Oh, believe me, I fully appreciate its merits. And no, it would be no risk to me, to you, nor to id911T. But we're not the guys I'm worried about.

Anyway, for those of you wondering what an "unsupported" vs. "fully supported" chamber looks like, I found this. The standard 1911 is on the left, a fully supported version on the right. Notice how much of the case ahead of the extractor groove is visible. This is where they fail when subjected to too high of pressure:

[Por_sha911]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

You are partially correct. New Model Blackhawks are actually stronger than original three screw Blackhawks...
I admire your prudence. I bet you still have all of your fingers, and both eyes. But, yes, your new Flat Top will happily digest "+P" and "+P+" loads all day long without any trouble. Its cylinder is shorter than the full size Blackhawk. I know my own 300 grain loads, meant for my full size Blackhawks, are too long for my New Vaquero. Not sure about the commercial stuff, like Buffalo Bore. I would hope it is.

I appreciate the info. A Ruger tech rep advised that the New Model Flat Tops are stronger except for the 45 Colt and 44. Here is the communication:

Our Firearms are designed to handle all US Industry Standard Ammunition made to SAAMI Spec including +P., except 45 Colt +P & 44 +P. If you have specific questions as to whether a type of ammunition meets SAAMI specs. We recommend you contact an ammo manufacturer.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

I appreciate the info. A Ruger tech rep advised that the New Model Flat Tops are stronger except for the 45 Colt and 44. Here is the communication:

Our Firearms are designed to handle all US Industry Standard Ammunition made to SAAMI Spec including +P., except 45 Colt +P & 44 +P. If you have specific questions as to whether a type of ammunition meets SAAMI specs. We recommend you contact an ammo manufacturer.

Interesting. While I would never shoot my high pressure "Blackhawk" loads in my New Vaquero (they are too long to fit anyway), I've fired thousands of "+P" loads out of it. Everyone I know with a new Flat Top in .45 Colt or .44 Special does so as well, without any trouble at all. I know this kind of flies in the face of my mantra on "gun safety", but the only data I have ever used has been published in recognized, reliable, industry sources.

Brian Pearce just wrote an article in Handloader earlier this year on precisely this - "+P" loads for the .45 Colt, and which guns are suitable for them. He included both the Flat Top and New Vaquero in his list of suitable guns. Again, these absolutely will not take the loads shown in many reloading manuals under their "Ruger Only" data, but they will accept a useful bump up from what the Colts will accept.

https://www.handloadermagazine.com/45-colt-p-medium-frame-sixguns-pet-loads

I'm afraid one needs a subscription to read all of it, but this gives the gist of it.