I wouldn't necessarily choose those loads, either, but nonetheless, they would be, and historically have been, quite effective. .........So, comparing "back in the day" BP loads with today's CAS loads is essentially, apples-to-apples....
You may have a case for the .44 WCF CAS loading being "apples-to-apples" with the original black powder loads, but I seriously doubt it. I don't have a .44-40, and have never even fired one, so I don't pretend to have an answer for it, not having my loading data with me on this trip.
However, I am familiar enough with the .45 Colt to say that your assertion is entirely untrue. A .45 Colt CAS load is not equivalent to the normal 30 gr. FFg black powder load. It would completely defeat the whole point of CAS loads, which is reduced recoil.
Our mutual friend, Sir Isaac Newton, once told me that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is what causes recoil. In order to reduce the recoil in any given gun, one must reduce the force coming from the muzzle, which force we call "energy". This can be accomplished by reducing the velocity and/or mass of the projectile. In other words, reducing recoil equals reducing muzzle energy. In other, other words, CAS reduced-power loads cannot be "apples-to apples" with the original black powder loads when talking about the .45 Colt, where the recoil of a standard full black powder load points that muzzle sky high. Do CAS loads do this? Wouldn't it defeat the point of CAS loads if they did?! .45 Colt reduced CAS loads are NOT "apples-to-apples" with the original black powder loads.
Well, sir, this thread is entirely about whether or not the CAS loads, in the listed calibers are "adequate", so I was responding accordingly......and thus, I maintain my position on the question the OP asked. A 200gr slug, from a 44/40 CAS load, at ~700fps, [B]is[/B] well-suited for personal defense, despite not being as powerful as more modern offerings.
Ah, and there's the rub. "Adequate" is subjective, and adequacy of any given round will depend on conditions which cannot be known in advance.
Is a CAS .44-40 round "adequate" for self-defense? Sometimes, sometimes not.
Is a standard .44-40 round "adequate" for self-defense? Sometimes, sometimes not.
Is a CAS .45 Colt round "adequate" for self-defense? Sometimes, sometimes not.
Is a standard .45 Colt round "adequate" for self-defense? Sometimes, sometimes not.
There's simply no way one can say whether a given round would be "adequate" to eliminate a threat without using some term of uncertainty, like "could".
A CAS .44-40 round
could be adequate for self-defense.
A standard .44-40 round
could be adequate for self-defense.
A CAS .45 Colt round
could be adequate for self-defense.
A standard .45 Colt round
could be adequate for self-defense.
Heck, even a .22 short
could be "adequate" under optimal conditions, so please be careful when saying such and such a load
is adequate for self-defense.
There can be no pat answer to whether a CAS load is adequate or not, but one can decide for himself whether or not it would be
prudent to consciously choose a CAS loading to defend his own life. No one can answer that question for anyone but himself. One person may value his life more than another one values his.
And, dang you anyway, TIMBERWOLF! I hear you around the corner snickering about what you started!
