Historical lever action chambering question

[9245]

I'm just sitting here bored at a work event and was passing the time reading about the pros and cons of .45 Colt vs. .45 Schofield, vs .45 Cowboy and a question crossed my mind.  So we know that .45 Colt was never historically chambered in lever actions due to the rim being too narrow for the extractor, and the only reason why we can make it work today is because modern .45 Colt has an extractor groove.  But what about .45 Schofield?  If I remember correctly, .45 Schofield has a wider rim than .45 Colt, so would it have been technically possible for a gunsmith to have done a custom rifle chambered in .45 Schofield?

Most modern .45 Colt rifles will run .45 Schofield (some with modifications), but to clarify I'm talking about in period, not modern.

[Hair Trigger Jim]

I don't know about .45 Schofield, but there was apparently one 1866 carbine in .44 Russian:
https://jamesdjulia.com/item/52467-1-397/
And if you click on the link "Click here to view provenance" at the bottom of the page, you get to read the letter referenced in the link.

Maybe 45 Schofield could have been done to an 1866, possibly without even changing the bore diameter from .44 Henry.

[Kent Shootwell]

In 1866 there weren't many cartridge guns yet and the 44 Henry cartridge was not much different than the much later 45 Schofield. When the advantage of center fire cartridges became evident the new 44/40 filled that need. The need for one Rifle model to be chambered in multiple cartridges wasn't needed for marketing like today. A half dozen different cartridges of nearly the same capacity that would fit the design makes poor sense even back then.

[9245]

In 1866 there weren't many cartridge guns yet and the 44 Henry cartridge was not much different than the much later 45 Schofield. When the advantage of center fire cartridges became evident the new 44/40 filled that need. The need for one Rifle model to be chambered in multiple cartridges wasn't needed for marketing like today. A half dozen different cartridges of nearly the same capacity that would fit the design makes poor sense even back then.

From a manufacturing standpoint yes, but I'm saying if somebody walked in to a gunsmith with a lever action, and said "I want you to make this shoot the same caliber as my pistol" and his pistol was chambered in .45 Schofield, could the gunsmith have been able to do it?  I already know the manufacturers's didn't.

This is the second post to mention the 1866 though, is there something about that model that would make it more conducive to that than say something later like an 1892?

[Coffinmaker]

Ah Yes

Just from a technical standpoint, and being a retired Gunplumber, Technically yes, it would have been possible to convert some lever action rifles to run 45 Schofield cases.  There was however, no call for that cartridge in a Rifle.  The civilian market for lever action was already satisfied by the 44 Henry Flat being chambered in the Henry rifle and later, the Improved Henry aka: The 1866.

The 45 Colt cartridge was initially driven by Military requirements, not civilian desire.  The 45 Schofield cartridge was likewise driven to fulfill military requirements, not civilian, as was the .45 government cartridge.  Military rifles were not chambered in pistol cartridges so there was no government driven demand for rifles chambered for handgun cartridges.  None of the .45 designated cartridge guns were available for civilian sales until after all the government orders had been filled.  It's a pretty tangled webb.

I don't see where anyone referenced an 1860 prior to me mentioning the 44 Henry Flat??

[9245]

Ah Yes

Just from a technical standpoint, and being a retired Gunplumber, Technically yes, it would have been possible to convert some lever action rifles to run 45 Schofield cases.  There was however, no call for that cartridge in a Rifle.  The civilian market for lever action was already satisfied by the 44 Henry Flat being chambered in the Henry rifle and later, the Improved Henry aka: The 1866.

The 45 Colt cartridge was initially driven by Military requirements, not civilian desire.  The 45 Schofield cartridge was likewise driven to fulfill military requirements, not civilian, as was the .45 government cartridge.  Military rifles were not chambered in pistol cartridges so there was no government driven demand for rifles chambered for handgun cartridges.  None of the .45 designated cartridge guns were available for civilian sales until after all the government orders had been filled.  It's a pretty tangled webb.

I don't see where anyone referenced an 1860 prior to me mentioning the 44 Henry Flat??

That was my fault, I meant to type 1866, I edited it now to fix the goof.

[Coffinmaker]

  OK

First I'll address the technical issues.  None of the rifles of the ages were a simple matter for conversion to 45 Schofield.  The first step is to first get the Gun to reliably feed the Schofield cartridge.  Second step is re-bored or completely new barrel.  We are basically talking about Toggle Link rifles of the period which were the most prolific.  The conversion, while do-able, was not actually cost effective.  Especially since there was no reason to do it.

Moving forward to the 1892, There were even more problems to overcome.  Changes to the feed system were necessary along with different cartridge guides and stops and the change to the bore.  Plus the 44 WCF was considered superior to the 45 Schofield.  And you get to the "Why Bother" point.  The movement to and existence of the Western Frontier and the need or desire for interchangeable cartridges was gone.  there was simply no need.

There were a number of 1892 Rifles converted to run 45 ACP in South America for Military and Police but those guns had no applicability in this country.  The actual conversion of a '92 to run 45 ACP is a real nightmare.