Rowland has proven that his load can match the performance of the 4" .44, and the KY rifle and patched ball. Those 2 loads have taken all N. American game. Furthermore, noted rifleman Jim Carmichael was willing to bet his farm that he could take any N. American animal, under conditions of fair chase, with a .22 Hornet, and he further bet  $10,000 that he could do so with no more than 2 shots. Now if Jim could do this with no more repeat hit speed,range  and power than a bolt  action 22 Hornet rifle can offer, (meaning on BRAIN shots, of course) don't you think that similarly skilled men can do likewise with the 1911? After all, what can a .44 swc (or the once-popular steel jacketed NOrma  softpoint) or  Ky Rifle or .405 gr 45-70 flat point DO other than put a half inch hole thru both lungs, and do so ONCE before the animal flees (or charges, in most cases)? A 90 gr zinc swc .45, at 2200 fps, can make that same thru and thru hole, and do so repeatedly and swiftly if the animal staggers (or if he charges.) Make it hollowbased, and cuppointed, so that it will "dig into" slanting faces, rather than merely glancing off, and it will do better on the chargers, too. The great penetration of this load might well be useful on large boar hogs, but on deer, pronghorn, and cougar, I would opt for a 90 gr solid copper hp. At 2200 fps, either one has the same power as the 4" .44, or the M16 (which has managed to take several tigers in Nam) Poachers even take Elephant with sub 10m bursts from the m16. It perforates one lung, they cough up blood and aspirate it into the OTHER lung. Between that and the blood loss, it kills them. The poachers just wait overnite and then look for the vultures. So why keep doing what you and many others have done before, when you can break new ground  (and prove all those revolver fans WRONG)?  :-)

What exactly are the conditions of a fair chase where Jim Carmichael says he can take any North American Animal with 2 shots of 22 hornet?  Obviously not a charging Grizzly bear.

Have you tested your zinc swcs on thick animal skulls?  Bears have incredibly thick frontal plates on thier skulls.  Try the test on a fresh skull not one that is old and desicated.

Do you really think you can get close enough during a legal hunt to use a short range light weight 45 bullet on a deer, pronghorn, or cougar?

If a bear has to be charging in order for the hunt to qualify as being legal, I dare say that 99+% are taken in NON sporting manners. Bear's front plates are not that thick, compared to say, a bull's. Bears don't butt heads, bulls DO butt heads. Nature-evolution does not pass on traits which don't benefit the species. Bow hunters routinely get a lot closer than I need to be with my .45. It's legal to BAIT black bear in some areas, and brown bears feeding on salmon or an animal carcass can often be approached to within 10m, as many a photographer has proven. I suggest that you not try to catch my .45 swc loads in your hand at 100m, as you seen to THINK you can do.

If a bear has to be charging in order for the hunt to qualify as being legal, I dare say that 99+% are taken in NON sporting manners. Bear's front plates are not that thick, compared to say, a bull's. Bears don't butt heads, bulls DO butt heads. Nature-evolution does not pass on traits which don't benefit the species. Bow hunters routinely get a lot closer than I need to be with my .45. It's legal to BAIT black bear in some areas, and brown bears feeding on salmon or an animal carcass can often be approached to within 10m, as many a photographer has proven. I suggest that you not try to catch my .45 swc loads in your hand at 100m, as you seen to THINK you can do.  Carmichael knows a lot better than you do what can be done with a rifle on animals, as well as what constitutes fair chase.

jett3... here's a for ya...  you're ...  period!
W

jett3...  I apologize.  Was just having fun with ya.  Having cared for black, brown and griz in captivity during the past...  I know what it takes to put them down...  and no way do you take chances with an animal like that... with a pistol.  Just my experienced 2 cents.
W.  

jett3 -

I'm not sure you can fairly compare taking a large, dangerous animal with a .22 Hornet rifle versus a 1911 (regardless of load).  First of all, I can hit a much smaller area much more consistently from a much greater distance with a .22 Hornet rifle (any rifle for that matter) than I can with any handgun, 1911 included.  If I was taking that 2 shot .22 Hornet challenge on a bear, I would take my 2 headshots at 50+ yards.  It's unlikely that you can make an accurate shot with a .45 ACP at that range in the same way you could with a rifle.

Think of it this way, at any range you can place a good shot on a big bear with a .45, that bear is too close and you're about to become his late afternoon snack.  Regardless of a power difference between a .22 Hornet and a .45 ACP, the rifle is going to be able to make a better shot from a safer distance, thus making up for its (relative) lack of power.

The only time you should be shooting at a big bear with a 1911 is if your .338 Win Mag (or better) is jammed/broken and the bear is on top of you like you're a giant McDonalds cheeseburger.

Hey, I killed a charging wild boar with .45 APC ball, does that count? Only took two shots too.