hotter 45 Colt Handloads in Rossi M92

Well, everybody has their own perspective, but I can't endorse Paco's.
I'm sure we've all known a guy who never knew when enough was enough, and was always attempting to push things just a bit farther. This is the key element to Paco Kelly's firearm ethic. I should state that I do not know, nor have I ever met Mr. Kelly, so none of this is personal, but those who DID know him used to shake their heads and say things like...yes, Paco has blown up more'n a few guns.
Still, he is an internet guru, and he does have his flock of converts. I don't know how many of his flock still have all their fingers.
The Winchester'92 action is the strongest action ever devised for a pistol cartridge lever gun. With top quality steel, and proper heat treating, the gun can withstand enormous pressures. The question here is...how good is Rossi steel and quality control?

The other factor is those Speer pills. I believe they have dual crimping grooves, and the Speer manual I referenced, not the latest, BTW, instructs seating to the lower groove, which opens up more space in the brass, and elongates the OAL. Rossis have been very finicky about OAL, and such a bullet, seated in such a way, may not chamber.
I do think that some inference is possible, if your gun is in top condition. The 44 magnum is chambered in the same gun, and it has an operating pressure of 36, 000psi. last I checked. The .45 Colt is a close match to 44 mag dimensions, so the Rossi gun SHOULD be able to handle Ruger loads in the high 20, 000psi range. Again, this assumes you are adhering exactly to components, trim length, and using new, or pretty new brass. Unfortunately, I have no idea what pressure the Speer load runs at.
The problem with turning the .45 Colt into a 44 magnum with a bigger bullet is that the variables are many, and the warning signs very few before something goes kaboom. Some veteran handloaders, like Brian Pearce, have extensive experience, and the use of a pressure testing lab to refine their wildcats. Lacking this, all we have are manuals and factory recommendations.
Nobody knows better than I do that guns are expensive, but the advice of long time Handloader Charlie Petty still makes a lot of sense; If you want a magnum, buy a magnum.

...Mak
Rule of thumb here on Sixguns is stick with published load data for your particular firearm.

Many thanks! I think in this case, discretion will be the better part of valor!

I am not  really wild about the big pill in my Ruger, preferring 6 grains of Trail Boss over a 230 grain lead bullet.  I ended up with the 300 grainers because I ran low on cast bullets, that was the only jacketed bullet available locally, and was hoping to find a more practical use for them. I like the little Rossi way too much to want to blow it up.  It rides on my tractor in a scabbard, and the 16" barrel makes an easy draw.

The Rossi  will feed the longer OAL OK. Right now my only manual is a Speer #14. If anyone knows of another manual that has standard pressure loads for the 300 grain unicore, kindly let me know and I will order one.   

thanks again!

CD,
Its pretty bewildering to look around and find the right manual, but I'd like to recommend the Lyman Reloading Handbook.  They offer a long list of potential loads for a wide cross section of cartridges, and list pressures to boot. 
Even if the longer bullet does seat, you need to know if the bullet jams into the rifling, or if it is within a few hundredths of an inch. The first condition can create pressure spikes. The easiest way to discover this is to use dummy cartridges smoked with a candle. You keep playing with the seating depth until you hit resistance, then you measure-and measure again.  The second case is the desired state.
I like the Rossi 92, and even though I don't currently own one, I've shot several. About the only Achilles Heel I've discovered is that the sights should be much better than they are. Chambered in 357, its a fun gun to shoot, and lethal enough for serious work.

Thanks!

Found a Hogdon 2013 Annual today with a few more loads, including some standard pressure for the 300 grain SP. I am going to order a Lyman too!  Fun reading! 

After 15 years of relying strictly on my collection of old manuals going back to Phil Sharpe's tome, I broke down and bought a new Lyman manual. The first thing I noticed was that many of my favorite calibers are no longer listed, such as 7X61 Sharpe and Hart as well as 6.5X54 Mannlicher. Next, I started checking out loads for the boring calibers (everything else). Many pressure listings are blank. I think I got hosed. I couldn't care less about the fat and ungainly temporary annoyances such as 300 etc. etc. WSM ar the SAUMs. In a few years, they will reside in the same purgatory as the 307 Winchester. From now on, I will make myself inspect new loading manuals before I buy them. I could have bought a nice die set for the 280 Ross with the money I wasted on the Lyman manual.
Mike

Mike,

If your specialty is obscure cartridges, then hand loading them becomes a horse of a different color.
The rules here work quite well, I believe, for the cartridges most will try to reload. The cartridges you write of had their moment, and have faded away, for reasons that sometimes escape any sense. I am a big fan of the 30-30, but the truth is the 307 is simply way more cartridge, yet it faltered, go figure.
Yes, you are correct that the Lyman manual does not list all pressures, yet they do list quite a few. Reloading manuals are made to sell, and while some will offer data for extinct cartridges, most will stick to what sells.
I do understand your frustration, but honestly, for your interests, you might consider a subscription to the online site Load data.com. I also peruse the magazine rack for certain issues of Rifle and Handloader magazines. A few years back, there was a great piece on loading the 264 Win Mag, and I bought the copy with the 348 WCF load data.

Handloaders should, in my opinion, look to the newest data available, because the composition and characteristics of powder changes over time-look at the changes to 2400, for instance. If you loaded to Keiths' standard with today's powder, you would be running beyond red hot.

What I object to most in the "new" Lyman manual is that very little new info is included: the pressure info is mostly recycled from the 45th edition. That is why, with many cartridges, there is only partial  pressure info. In addition, I am willing to bet (but not against any Canadians) that the "new" cartridges will disappear much sooner than the 6.5X54MS and the 7X61S&H.
My loading manual collection from Lyman goes back to pre-SAAMI days, when even cast bullets for rifles were included. And, yes, I do subscribe to Loaddata as well as Ammoguide. They can be a great help. However, they contain data from people like me. Good God. And I have complete collections of both Handloader and Rifle. Count up the articles on 6.5X54MS and 7X61S&H in them.

Mike

Sorry Guys: I had to interject about the comment Mak made as to 2400 being hotter now. WRONG. I went right to the source a while back and asked them if it was a different 2400 now as opposed to Elmers 2400 and they answered:
 "Nothing like going to the source when inquiring minds want to know. I got in touch with the Alliant people and their response was fast and courteous! Great when companies care about their customers and respond promptly. According to Alliant, 2400 is being made to the same specifications as always.... Of course they advise working up loads slowly because of variations in bullets, cases and primers etc. as is always prudent. Hope this puts to rest any misinformation as to the "hotness" of 2400. Chris"
I don't dispute your advice to use latest data Mak, just be sure it's the right data. Chris S

2400 has been my friend in the 44 special for many, many years. I found that using Elmer Keith's 18.5 gr. of 2400 behind 429421 was way out of range because he was using balloon head cases that have a bunch more room than solid head. I originally had balloon head cases. See how long I've been at it? They are a pain in the butt to reload because the ballooned primer pocket is a bear to get the decapping pin into. Anyway, I found that 16.5 gr. 2400 was about the equivalent charge to use in the new-fangled cases. I would surmise that this is where the rumor about "hot" 2400 came from, and that transition was more than 50 years ago. Rumors have long lives. 
Speaking of rumors, all you young kids can remember the rumors promoted by everybody with a financial interest when the WSM fatty cartridges came out. Same speed or faster than conventional with less recoil. I guess the laws of physics are repealed for silly ideas. Also, we heard that sharp shoulder angles are more efficient powder burners. Of course that had been argued in the 'gun funnies' in the '60's. When it was proven to be BS, it slowly faded away until the fatties came out. So, there are zombie rumors that are resurrected periodically so that a new generation can be hoodwinked. Kind of like medical rumors. It's always a case of "follow the money". Or, as Chill Wills said in Rancho Deluxe, "All the big jobs are inside jobs".

OK, Get out the clubs, cuz MAK said something off the cuff.
2400 is the same powder, but today's composition is faster burning than in EK days. Several reasons as to why a powder would change in burning rate, from kernel size to change in chemical providers. I didn't mean that the powder produced more oomph, just that it takes less to get you there.
When it comes to Handloading and the internet, it is quite possible that statements can be misconstrued, poorly understood, or whatever, but here goes. When you are at an entry level, or even an intermediate level regarding the art and science of creating your own ammo, and you read stuff from people who contradict the best available information, you begin to think that you don't need any structure, you can just go out there and go crazy. The truth is that when you get to certain level of experience and interest, the rules do change somewhat, but you can't bend the rules effectively until you know what they are, and understand why they are there.
OK, now you you can all charge me with clubs swinging.

Mak take it in stride, no criticism intended simply had to correct and old rumor. Yes, people need to be prudent when reloading but assigning the blame to a component that doesn't warrant the blame doesn't help any reloader, novice or old pro.  Mike had a good point about case capacity old and new and that is probably closer to why 2400 got a bad name. In the 44 magnum I used Elmer's standard load of 22.0 grains with a 240 grain bullet and it is stout but works in a Ruger Super Blackhawk just fine. I admit I don't like to shoot  those and bow to Elmer's ability to tolerate them as a steady diet for his Smith. I do note that Alliant lists 21.0 grains of 2400 in 44 magnum using 240 grain jacketed bullets as max so they feel the old load was too much.  I definitely think any load using a cast bullet would require a lower load than any listed in the old books.  I noted these loads as reference only and don't advocate anyone using them. Chris S

Both your and Mikes points concerning balloon head cases-which have a greater capacity are accurate.I guess I should mention that as a stick in the mud, I still use 2400.
Most of all, I just want to be aware of the newer reloaders here. This is not saying that I developed the finesse of the late great ballisticians like Phil Sharpe. I am not in their league, but I do try my best to offer information that is helpful, consistent, and accurate.
I feel like folks put up with me here rather than really wanting to hear from me, which is ok, I guess I'm just glad to be included, and allowed to provide a few tidbits whenever possible...

When I got my first 44 Special in 1978, a beautiful S&W 1950, I called Elmer Keith on the phone to ask about loads. He had always liked 2400, but cautioned me to use 16.5 gr. as the new 18.5 gr. in the 44 Special. It has always worked great for me. The first timed I fired a round at night at a coyote about 20 yds. away, there was a tremendous flash accompanied by a huge bright orange ring of fire. I think the coyote died of fright before the bullet hit.
However, now I have migrated to Unique for most of my 44 Sp; and 45 Colt loads because I can use about half as much powder. I guess that's the Scot coming out. Or is it 'oot'?

Mike

........that is why I don't like to quote loads in a forum format. A load that works in one gun may be bad for another, so too with powders, what works in one load may not be good in another and so on........ I started my reloading back in the early sixties with a Lyman 310 Tong tool and an Ohaus scale and a Lyman reloading manual. I did 357 and 30-06 and mostly stuck with safe loads that gave good accuracy. My old loads may not be correct any more so I don't like to quote them. Over the years I graduated to presses and more tools and different powders etc. and now I am back to a more simpler loading life. I am trying to use as few powders as necessary and the easiest tools, which for me are an RCBS compact press that is made to be used at the range or in the field and I am in love with Trail Boss for my 45. There may be far better options but as I said, simple is for me, one good load and pleasant shooting till the sun goes down. I gave up pounding my hands or my shoulder with heavy loads. And Mak, debate is the best form of flattery!!!! Chris S

Chris,
You and I started reloading about the same time. I started out with Lee Loaders for 357 and 6.5X54MS. Pounding those 357 cases into a Lee Loader was one great pain. I soon moved to an RCBS Junior bolted to a telephone cable drum. Now that was style. 
After I got my Hornady LNL AP Press a few years ago, I got rid of three presses. Now I am down to the progressive, an RCBS Rockchucker, and an old Herter double ram. I still keep numerous powder measures around: an old Belding & Mull, an Ohaus Duo Measure (a heck of an invention), and an RCBS uniflow or whatever it is. They all work well, but some fit certain powders better than the others.
I have been getting rid of my dad's huge supply of bullet jackets. He used Ted Smith's Mighty Mite press to make 6mm and 308 jacketed bullets. He was like the Anal Retentive Chef on Saturday Night Live. All his bullets were perfect. Excellent hunting bullets, too. I thought I might someday take up swaging, but he left me at least three lifetime supplies of 6mm 87 gr. and .308 167 gr. I'm still hanging on to the press and his notes, but I will get them out soon.
I, too, try to rely on as few powders as possible. My most used are Unique, 4759, 2400, H380, Ball C2, and 4831SC. The 4759 us used in the 577 NE and 9.5X47R. The Unique goes in the large revolvers, and the rest for nearly everything else. Oh, and Triple 7 for the cannon. I got a whole bunch at Wally World a few years ago for $6.00 a can. Guess it didn't sell well for them, but it sure makes the cannon bark.

Wow, I didn't know there were more than one of these big hunks of iron left alive. Got both sides of mine set with 30-06 shell holders, use a Junior for all other rifle sizes.
Also like 2400 for the 44 mags. I also started loading back in the sixties for -06 and 44 mag.'
later, ace