1860 Colts with Kirst Konverter cylinders for NCOWS???

[Adirondack Jack]

AJ:

Firstly, thanks for submitting your cartridge for examination and consideration by NCOWS. It is appreciated.
Secondly, thank you very much for contributing to this thread in a positive, intelligent and gentlemanly manner.

Now to your concerns:

OK dave.  I see where yer coming from on almost all of it.

When we get to the bottom, we read "it isn't about headstamps" then further, that it IS about headstamps, and NO, being essentially the same as .45 Webley is not grounds to allow it without debate because it is a modern cartridge (never mind that the INTERNAL VOLUME and case head are exactly the same, and the length is very close.

I'm sorry, but I'm straining to stay within good decorum on this.  If a pard uses MODERN .44 Russian cases loaded with BP (or .45 Colt for that matter) he CAN'T get enough BP in the case to be authentic, but if I say "We got here a very authentic, 19th century cartridge, the .45 Webley, recreated with a slightly longer case that makes up for the fact that solid head cases hold less powder than balloon head brass of the same length, and if loaded with the correct bullet, will produce the same results they had back in the day"  Ya trip me with the headstamp.

But if  run .44 mag or .44 spl cases cut more or less to .44 Russian, I'm good to go, even if the solid case head ends up holding maybe 4 or 5 grains less BP than it ought to?

Somehow I miss the logic, if there is any.  What we are left with is prejudicial emotion backed by circular reasoning.

I can't respond to that, and won't even try, except to say I hope Dick shows you fellas what this cartridge is all about when properly loaded, I hope you chrony it, and then I hope you compare the results to those often referred to as published by Captain George Baylor.  Google his "range camp"

The darned cartridge, loaded with a decent bullet and decent powder CAN outrun commonly used .45 Colt loads using cheap, overly processed (GOEX COWBOY) or APP.

It's no gamer load IF YOU DON'T WANT IT TO BE.

Read my "user data" page on the website and compare it to ACTUAL data on Baylor's pages (not some hokum about .45 Colt and BP running 950 fps with a 255).

I'm done, because, (and I know I'm pushing the line with this) it's NOT raining here, somebody's peeing down my leg.

[Irish Dave]

Well, AJ, from the tone of your last post apparently we are speaking frankly.

1) It's not about headstamps. It's about calling a tail a leg, as Lincoln observed.

2) The case capacity argument really doesn't wash. It's a "So-what?" point. For example, we all know modern .45-70 brass won't hold the same amount as the the old balloon cases, but curiously we don't we see anyone extending the length of the .45-70 so that they will. Or, let's say, what if one could load (hypothetically) the same amount of BP in a .44 Mag as in a .44-40. By the case capacity argument, I guess that would make them the same cartridge. What about a .44 SP and a .38-40,  etc?

3) If the intent was to recreate a .45 Webley AJ, why not just recreate one in the first place? Why not make it the same?
Your website touts: "The first purpose built cartridge for action shooting games" and "Now, why .895 inches?  Well, we could have chosen any  length, but we wanted a round that would load with commonly available dies, so we chose the same length as .45 ACP." Not to mention the 120-grain .45 bullet being considered for marketing.

It doesn't mention anything about the Webley or trying to recreate any old-time cartridges.  I guess I'm starting to suspect that that was not the intent. I didn't feel this way at the beginning as I believe I stated. But it's now looking to me like the .45 Webley comparison is primarily just an afterthought of reverse-engineering.

4) The point seems to be lost that the C45S is neither fish nor fowl. It's neither a purely "modern" cartridge nor a truly "vintage" cartridge. It doesn't qualify under our "original" cartridge bylaws. It could nonetheless still be approved by the Congress. In the past, NCOWS' periodic "Oh, well, it's kinda similar to something so, what the heck, it's OK" created lots of problems down the road. We don't do that anymore.

5) You have created a cartridge and wish it approved. I understand completely. I would, too, if the roles were reversed. It's good business.  OTOH, NCOWS has standards and a procedure for approving items. That's the way it works. I certainly fail to see anything "predjudicial" or "circular" about discussing and debating the merits of this or any other item being submitted for consideration.

As for putting an end to the thread, that's probably a good idea before anyone gets further "peed on."
The issue will go before the Congress and will be settled there -- probably in July.

[Will Ketchum]

I have been gone since Thursday and things started to get out of hand but then came back on track.  I think we have made our opinions known and that the Authenticity Committee has what it need to make it's recommendation.

I think further discussion would be pointless.

I am going to lock the thread for now.   If someone has something they think needs to be said they can submit it to me via a PM and I will consider it.  I would like to commend most everyone for keeping this discussion civil as well as informative.

Will Ketchum, moderator