If you had a .45cal handgun shooting a 255grn hard cast @ 900fps with the consistent accuracy shown below at a measured 50 yards, would you hunt a bull moose in Alaska with it, keeping within the self-imposed distance restrictions? Cuz I want to really, really bad!!

I would not turn down a shot at a moose with that load under 50 yards, though my 45 Colt loads run 1050-1200 fps depending on the gun. Bullet placement is everything.

I'd like a little more snuff but that kind of load has killed a lot of critters of all kinds over the years from a 45 Colt. My 45 Colt is pushing a 250 a bit over 1200. Are you shooting it from a 1911? I just have this feeling you are ;-)

Yes I am, a Kimber Warrior SOC. I hope to be set up for re-loading by the first of the year, after I return from the academy. Until then, Buffalo Bore hard cast +P seems to be my hardest hitting option. And then a .460 Rowland conversion next year

As you know shot placement is everything but with that load shot angle is going to be just as important.Broadside is the only angle I would take. With your dicipline and knowledge of anatomy it is doable,but once you start the fight keep hammering him until he is down. Good luck!!! J.M.H.O.

I shot a cow Canadian moose in Maine a few years ago, and when you see how big they are, it's eye opening. An Alaskan bull moose is considerably larger. Personally, I would want more bullet -- not saying that won't work as placement is everything, I want something that will work when things aren't so perfect. JMHO.

Just to put things into perspective:

In all honesty, no I would not.

Reason: I would use "more" gun.

Question: Do you have minimum power/caliber requirements in Alaska?

Whitworth, I agree with you 100% on their size. I shot a bull moose 2 years ago up here out of Talkeetna, and I've helped buddies clean a couple of others. I used a rifle on that one, a .45/70. I have plenty of gun in other configurations, like a .44mag in Super Blackhawk, and a rifle in .416 Rigby (grin) but I cant consistently hit good with the .44 and the .416 is so accurate and I shoot it so well it's not a challenge. I've been on this forum since 2008 and have still not taken anything with a handgun!!! That's an embarrassment and a shame, in my view. I'm just not a good, consistently handgun shot. So this is to be the year. I'm shooting the 1911 pretty well, pretty consistently, and I was hoping the penetration and energy would be there for me. Of course, caribou are on the menu too, and I know that they are well within the parameters of the 1911.

I guess I'm just going to have to go back here a couple of miles to a big beaver pond I know and get a beaver with the Kimber, just to finally get a handgun blooded. I love to eat them anyhow, they remind me of eating a young, fat black bear taken late in the fall. I can have one of the elders here in the village turn the hide into some mittens for me.

[quote=Whitworth]I shot a cow Canadian moose in Maine a few years ago, and when you see how big they are, it's eye opening. An Alaskan bull moose is considerably larger. Personally, I would want more bullet -- not saying that won't work as placement is everything, I want something that will work when things aren't so perfect. JMHO



BH, Good move on your part..... Wish I could join you for the beaver......

+1

I'm a bit curious as to why the Super Blackhawk has not been working for you, the ones that I have known have shot very well.
A 300gr bullet @ 1200fps or so should out class anything from a 45acp. Just a thought.

I agree, the .44mag is definitely way more gun. I've had the Super Blackhawk for several years (it is a very lightly used un-modified 3-screw) and have put several boxes of shells through it. Sometimes I can get a pretty good group at 40 yards off of a bench, sometimes I cant keep them all on an 10" pie plate. When I shoot jacketed stuff it sometimes peppers my face with either powder or shaved jacket, I don't know which. I love the gun, the action is silky smooth and the trigger light, but I don't fully trust it any more. I know the problem is probably me and not the weapon, but I've been unable to work out the issues, or even figure out what they are. The Kimber goes bang every time and hits where I aim it. I trust it.

I had a FA83 in 454 that I did well with, but I was laid off from the oilfield for several months before this job, and had to liquidate some assets to feed the family and pay bills. Being back in bush Alaska, I'm really regretting that right now.

Sounds like you have a timing issue with the Blackhawk.Set two cardboard boxes or sheets of cardboard up 12 to 14 inches apart and shoot between them .Center the cylinder gap between the cardboard and you will know pretty quickly if it is shaving lead or not.Number the cylinder holes and change out the cardboard every shot so you will know which cylinder is shaving lead.I wouldn't feel ungunned with the .45 acp on moose but I would like a little more room for error that the .44 mag gives you.

No, I would not use it. People frequently can't be depended on to stay within their "self imposed limits" in the heat of the hunt. I want something with excess power, adequate for unanticipated situations.

If your target is of 75 yards and you keep your first shot around 25 yards on moose you just may be OK. If the moose start running by 50 yards I would be shooting for kneecaps on a couple legs.Texas heart shots will have no effect

I appreciate all of the feedback and advice, guys. I don't take it lightly, and I listen to and consider all of it. I head back to Sitka in 3 weeks for the rest of my LEO training, another 15 weeks, so it looks like I will be missing all of this years hunting season after all. At least that will give me a chance to get ready for the spring hunt, which will be caribou and black bear. The .45acp will certainly be plenty for caribou, but I plan to have the .460 Rowland conversion by then.

I've taken this Kimber out and shot it a number of times since I was on here last, and the accuracy and reliability has just been incredible. It's just ..."right". Does that make sense? It just feels right. At 50 feet, standing and shooting off hand, I'm regularly punching out one big hole the size of a silver dollar. One reason I have never just gone ahead and "pulled the trigger" on hunting with a handgun was I never had one I felt I could shoot one well enough consistently. If I am able to maintain what I have with the .460, I should be good.

However, because of where I am and the size of some of my more formidable, furry neighbors, I've decided that I'll still carry the rifle along anyhow. Just in case.

It's .416 Rigby on a Ruger 77 RSM.

You were dinging iron targets with the 454 while you were here! That gun would work just fine for hunting!!

Yeah, but after you fired me, I had to sell it to help pay for the move back to Alaska!

I wish I lived close. I would let you borrow something. I would be skittish of using the ACP on moose. the .460 Rowland is a whole new ball of wax. making nearly three times the power of the ACP its no joke. I have no problem getting 265grs out at 1375fps from the Rowland. There again if I lived close I would send you out with my .480 SRH.