There's a reason why the 45 Colt was not offered in rifles. .

[RattlesnakeJack]

Good idea! In addition to the excellent advice from the pards, I would add that larger diameter bullets decrease the "windage" ( space around the case in the chamber) and also help seal better.  I would suggest .454" diameter bullets over .452". I am partial to .456"/.457" myself.

Yes indeed ... that's another factor I forgot to mention!  I also use .454 bullets. 

Matter of fact,  the "local" commercial bullet supplier/reloader (a friend and fellow shooter located about 80 miles away) wasn't set up to supply suitable bullets for .45 Colt so a few years ago two of us who shoot .45 Colt went together to advance him the US$500 (which was C$800 back then!) for him to buy the full set of mould blocks for his casting machine, on condition we could pick the specific configuration (i.e. .454" 250gr FN) and then have a credit with him for C$400 each towards bullets at "wholesale" price.  I  recently took delivery of another 8000 bullets and still have credit for about 4000 more!  On the other hand, my other friend has exhausted his credit because both he and his wife shoot .45 Colt ...

Long Live .45 Colt!   

[yul b. nekst]

OK! I found it!  www.leverguns.com/articles/paco/45coltlevergun.htm

The MILITARY is to blame for no 45 Colt RIFLES!!!!  Just like Roswell, JFK, fake moon landings, ad infinitum! Well, actually, because the cartridge was being developed for our 1870's fighting men, Colt wasn't letting anyone else have dibs on the 45 Colt. News to me, but a very interesting read none-the-less! Personally, I liked the backroom deal between Colt and Winchester myself!

[w44wcf]

yul b. nekst,

Thank you for the update. I believe the deal between Winchester and Colt to be more credible.  I searched Google Patents and found several by Samuel Colt but nothing on the .45 Colt cartridge. 
http://www.google.com/patents?q=samuel+colt&btnG=Search+Patents

Also, Winchester did not chamber anything in the '73 that they did not invent, thus the W.C.F. nomenclature of it's cartridges.

If we had just not modernized the original .45 colt cartridge.......
We have modernized the .45 Colt cartridge, using smaller diameter bullets than the larger .457" hollow based soft lead bullet it was invented with. 

The original b.p. used was hotter than Goex and coupled with the original bullet diam. & design = NO BLOWBACK! 

I personally witnessed that when shooting the early U.M.C. cartridges in my Marlin  1894 Cowboy .45 Colt rifle.

w44wcf

[Steel Horse Bailey]

Greetings!

I knew that old powder was hotter than GOEX - probably more like Swiss - and that the old original bullets were pure soft and hollow-based, but I didn't know they were .457" diameter.

I'll bet our "improved" 45 Colt cases are also thicker than the early ones.  Were they also copper like the 45-70 cases?  That would also effect blowback.  I'm not sure, but I THINK brass is stiffer than copper.

Good, interesting info.

[Pitspitr]

Yes they were copper, or at least the one in my collection was.

[Adirondack Jack]

The "original" .45 Colt (and schofield) was an inside primed copper case.  Sometime in the late 1870s or early 1880s they got license from Eley (after a protracted patent fight Eley had with Adams) to use boxer priming, and used reloadable BRASS cases of the balloon head design.    Many of these early cases (I have a bunch) are "red brass" (when oxidized th\ey turn red) and it waasn't until the cases with the extractor groove came about that they became "yellow brass".  The type of cases we use today first came about with the advent of the high pressure  rounds like .357 magnum (1935?) and by the 1950s all ammo was made with them.

[Delmonico]

Modern brass is 30% zinc and 70% copper. 

[Adirondack Jack]

Modern brass is 30% zinc and 70% copper. 

Yeah, there's actually a pretty protracted formula for making "cartridge brass", that prescribes the "tempering" process as well as the content.  I dunno what "red brass" consists of per se, but I suspect it had less zinc and was not near as tempered.

[Wills Point Pete]

44wcf, there is a point in cartridge size where increasing the bore size slows down a bullet. Case in point, the .30-06 and .270 Winchester. These two cases are exactly the same, except for the bore size. Yet the .30-06 will push a 150 grain bullet faster than a .270 will push a 150 grain bullet. Now I'm not scientifical enough to tell where that goes with the .44WCF and .45 Colt with black powder, I just know that the two cartridges put out nearly equal velocities with a "normal" weight bullet, the .44's 200 and the .45's 250. Each cartridge with a max load of FFFG GOEX puts out about 900 fps out of a 7.5 inch revolver and each puts out about the same, higher velocities out of a rifle of equal barrel length.
Now there may be some other explanation, I dunno, all I can do is look at the two cases, very close in capacity and note the results.

[Adirondack Jack]

44wcf, there is a point in cartridge size where increasing the bore size slows down a bullet. Case in point, the .30-06 and .270 Winchester. These two cases are exactly the same, except for the bore size. Yet the .30-06 will push a 150 grain bullet faster than a .270 will push a 150 grain bullet. Now I'm not scientifical enough to tell where that goes with the .44WCF and .45 Colt with black powder, I just know that the two cartridges put out nearly equal velocities with a "normal" weight bullet, the .44's 200 and the .45's 250. Each cartridge with a max load of FFFG GOEX puts out about 900 fps out of a 7.5 inch revolver and each puts out about the same, higher velocities out of a rifle of equal barrel length.
Now there may be some other explanation, I dunno, all I can do is look at the two cases, very close in capacity and note the results.

The answer to why is as near as your garden hose.  Take the nozzle off and see what happens to velocity, even with the same flow rate.  Put a nozzle on, even one with a mild restriction, and yer velocity and pressure start climbing accordingly.   As to resistance, put a 12 foot long, 1/4 inch "nozzle" on yer hose, point it straight up, and ya might have so much resistance ya blow out the hose, and ya still don't get squat for results.

Velocity with .44-40 VS .45 with NORMAL bullets is about the same, because long ago these "normal" bullets were settled on as the best compromize between velocity and throw weigh with BLACK POWDER.

Of course to GET the pressures up there to the "optimal" range with a given column of powder, the bigger pipe needs more resistance, which means more lead.  Suyre you CAN shoot light bullets in .45, but ya ought to match the charge to the bullet and barrel length.  No sense shooting a round ball out of a .45-70 cut to four inches, as all yer gonna get is a whole heap of flames and smoke and wasted powder.  MUCH more efficient would be a round ball equivalent out of a short case carrying under 20 grains of powder (and give ya about the same velocity and a helluva lot less fouling).

Conversely, one CAN shoot 250 or heavier bullets in .44, but the resistance goes up a bunch in the smaller pape, and the available powder charge ain't enough to get the desired velocity.  The bigger .45 runs the 250 with less resistance, lower pressure and gets a better "bang" for the buck.

[Driftwood Johnson]

I knew that old powder was hotter than GOEX - probably more like Swiss - and that the old original bullets were pure soft and hollow-based, but I didn't know they were .457" diameter.

I'll bet our "improved" 45 Colt cases are also thicker than the early ones.  Were they also copper like the 45-70 cases?  That would also effect blowback.  I'm not sure, but I THINK brass is stiffer than copper.

Yeah, there's actually a pretty protracted formula for making "cartridge brass", that prescribes the "tempering" process as well as the content.  I dunno what "red brass" consists of per se, but I suspect it had less zinc and was not near as tempered.

Modern brass is 30% zinc and 70% copper.

Today there are probably a couple of dozen different types of modern Brass, with varying alloy content. Very generally speaking, Brass is Copper alloyed with Zinc, Bronze is Copper alloyed with Tin. Of course it isn't that simple, and there is even some crossover between the Brasses and the Bronzes. To make matters worse, modern definitions of specific Copper alloys do not always agree with the content of metals of the same name in past centuries. I have a bunch of materials reference books at work, and I'll look up some metals specs next week. Until then, I looked in my copy of Fighting Iron, A Metals Handbook for Arms Collectors by Art Gogan, an excellent book for those interested in the metalurgy of weapons over the centuries.

The basic metal content for cartridge brass is 70% copper, 30% zinc. On the Web I found out that C2600 alloy (cartridge brass) is Copper  68.5 - 71.5, Iron  0.05 max, Lead  0.07 max, Remainder  Zinc. 

The basic metal content for Red Brass is 85% Copper and 15% Zinc. C2300 alloy (Red Brass) is Copper  84 - 86, Iron  0.05 max, Lead  0.05 max, Remainder  Zinc.

Cartridge brass was developed because it cold forms so well. Cartridge cases are formed mostly by cold working processes like drawing and cupping, very little material is removed by machining processes. Cartridge brass exibits the best ductility of any of the yellow brasses, a valuable factor for cold working. The 'extractor' groove we see on many rimmed cartridges is not an extractor groove at all, it is simply a relief cut into the side of the case to help define the cold formed rim better. Without the groove, the rim would meet the body of the case with a small radius. Cartridge brass also has memory, which allows it to shrink back close to its original size after the pressure of firing recedes. This allows the case to shrink back from the chamber wall, a distinct problem with earlier copper cases rounds.

Steel Horse Bailey: If you page back in this thread to the photos I posted earlier, those are the folded rim, Benet inside primed types of cases we are talking about here. Clearly, down at the base of the cartridge the metal was much thinner than modern cases. I cannot say if they were thinner up by the case mouth. I do not know this for a fact, but I suspect those early copper cased rounds were not pure copper, more likely gilding metal, which is 95% copper and 5% Zinc.

I have looked all over, but I cannot find a reference to the bullet diameter of the original Benet primed, copper cased 45 Colt round. According to my well thumbed copy of Kuhnhausen, groove diameter of the Colt Army Revolver, Caliber .45 was .454min-.455max. This is according to an Army spec sheet dated 1882. On another page Kuhnhausen details the Colt's Revolver Cartridge, Caliber .45 M1873 as having a 250 grain min/255 grain max hollow based, lubricated bullet. But I cannot find a spec for the diameter of the bullet. The purpose of the hollow base was so it would expand to provide "reasonable accuracy in .45 caliber revolvers with different chamber, chamber throat,  and barrel lands and groove dimensions."

[Adirondack Jack]

Driftwood.  The Benet primed schofield ammo I have (which dates it to the first few years of production) has dead soft bullets of .455 diameter.  I suspect the early colt was the same.

Oddly, it was Webley that made the first "true" .45, using .451 Bore and .452 inside lubed, boxer primed ammo.  Though in a sense it descends from the Adams and Eley (.450 that was really a .455), it presages modern ammo and bore dimensions.   It was made for use in Webley-Green revolvers and SINGLE ACTION ARMIES made under British license for about 50 years commencing in about 1880?.

[w44wcf]

Steel Horse Bailey,
The U.M.C. .45 Colt head stamped b.p cartridges that I shot had brass cases. The wall thickness at the mouth was an average of .010", which is about the same as today's mfg.  These cartridges were made sometime prior to 1911 or close to that date since U.M.C. purchased Remington in 1911, and the head stamp was changed to Rem-Umc shortly thereafter.

The case construction was "solid head button pocket" which indicates that it is the balloon head style case but not of the folded head design..   

Regarding .45 Colt bullet diameter, as I said the U.M.C. Cartridges had hollow based bullets that measured .457" but that was on the middle and front driving band. The base band was .454", no doubt reduced in the loading process, most likely due to the hollow base.   I have a box of Winchester hollow based .45 Colt 255 gr. lead bullets that were made in the mid 1970's. The box indicates they are .456" diameter.  My 1" Starrett micrometer confirms that they are.   

Adirondack Jack and Driftwood Johnson,
Thank you for the additional info on cartridge case materials.  In his excellent book, W.R.A. CO. Cartridges And Their Variations Vol I, Dan Shuey, in part, has this to say on page 18:
"Virtually all W.R.A. CO. cartridges were made of brass.  What appears to be "Red Brass" is observed on a very few early casings. This material is brass, but with a thin layer of copper applied to the case wall. Though copper is the standard for rim fire casings, it is rare on center fire (exposed primer)."  He also mentioned that Winchester had tried aluminum as case material back in 1891, but found it a little too soft for their liking. 

I have a number of W.R.A. CO. and U.M.C. head stamped cartridges in my collection and they are all made of brass.  W.R.A. CO. first began head stamping their cartridges in 1884 according to Dan.  I suspect that U.M.C. started around the same time.  I do have a few FA Benet primed copper cased cartridges but they are a .45-70 & a .50-70.

Wills Point Pete,
As you indicated , both cartridges have similar ballistics.  In my tests with Goex and Swiss in my rifles,  the difference between the .44-40 & .45 Colt is only around 100 f.p.s...close enough. With a 200 gr. bullet in the .45 Colt, velocities may be "spot on"
.44-40   / 200 / 40 / Goex FFG – 1,245 f.p.s.
.45 Colt / 250 / 40 / Goex FFG – 1.140 f.p.s.

.44-40   / 200 / 40 / Swiss FFG – 1,317 f.p.s.
.45 Colt / 250 / 40 / Swiss FFG – 1,218 f.p.s.

In your .270 / .30-06 example, yes the 150 can be pushed to a higher velocity at similar pressures in the .30-06, but it will take a heavier powder charge to do it.

Sincerely,
w44wcf

[Steel Horse Bailey]

Howdy Pards!

Very interesting!

Driftwood Johnson, Adirondack Jack, W44WCF, and all - thanks for the details. 

Red Brass?  That answers a question I have had for a couple years.  It aint Cowboy, but I was given about 10 ea. Military 30 Cal. Ball cartridges (30-06) with a very early headstamp (1908 or so - I don't remember for sure, and I can't find them this minute  ) and when I tumbled them after firing them, they came out a reddish color.  They also still had enough ooompfh to properly work the action of my M1 Garand.  I'd never seen such a thing as them as they are a different color from the copper cased cartridges I have left from when I had a bullet collection. (A 45-70 and a new-made [50-60 yrs old] 32 rimfire cartridge and about 25-30 old 22 CB or BB caps.  You know, the ones with just the priming charge and a round ball, I think - I never dismantled one, but about 3/4 of the ones I took to the range shot fine about 20 years ago.)

[Silver Creek Slim]

I'm a little late to this party. Oh, well. Lotsa good info here.
I have a 1970 vintage 1894 Marlin that has a 1894S .45 Colt barrel on it. Did I lose ya? Anyway, several years ago when I was using it with my BP loads I tried all of gyrations mentioned here to cut back on blowback into the receiver. I was getting BP fouling as far down as the trigger guard plate under the carrier. My load was/is .454" 255 gr PRS boolit, 35grs of FFFg Goex, mixed brass, and Rem LP primers. After inspecting some spent cases, I determined that the chamber was out of round and no amount of messin' around would seal the chamber. So, I went looking for a different rifle. This morning I did some testing with the rifle to measure the amount of case expansion with Nitro loads. I didn't want to have to clean the rifle so I didn't use BP. I used Winchester brass in the test. Below are the results.

1. Load = .454" 255 gr PRS Boolit, 5.1 grs of Clays at 13,400 CUP - max CAS load from Hodgdon manual
   max case dia. before = .475"
   max case dia. after = .486"

2. Load = .454" 255 gr PRS Boolit, 25.0 grs of Lil' Gun at ~ 29,800 CUP - .5 grs < max load from "Birdshot" at Hodgdon
   max case dia. before = .476"
   max case dia. after = .487"

It appears to my naked eye that 2/3rds of the way around the case expanded. The other 1/3rd looks almost straight with the rest of the case.

BTW, the second load has quite a bit of recoil. 

These are my observations. Your mileage may very. 

Slim

[Adirondack Jack]

SSS, that's the effect of gravity.  The round is laying in the bottom of the chamber, and when the load fires, the brass more easily expands upward than downward  (the bullet wanting to hold it down).  Hence the mouth is no longer in line with the base.

[Wills Point Pete]

 SS Slim, if you think that 255 gr Lil Gun load kicks, don't try a 300 grain bullet over a max load of H110. It makes that stainless steel crescent buttplate back up right smartly. Fire a box or two and go back to the dentist to have your fillings put back in.

Of course, since my .45 Colt handguns are the Italian Colt clones I only use jacketed bullets for the hot loads. I have yet to find a Texas Whitetail that will keep the Hornady XTP 250 grain JHP inside on any angle I've ever shot one. Of course I haven't tried a head on or straight up the hiney shot but I think either of those shots the bullet would reach something vital. An impressive exit hole, too.

My rule, lead bullets at the old time pressure, either real powder or smokeless and jacketed bullets for hot loads. I don't know for sure that a hot load of Lil Gun or H110 would blow up my Cimarrons but I know it wouldn't do them any good.
 
Let me rephrase that, I don't think one or two shots with that H110 or Lil Gun loads would blow those Cimarrons up, a steady diet would wreck them in short order. Whether they would fail catastrophically or just be battered into uselessness I don't know, nor am I intending to find out.

44wcf, thanks for that chrono data. I've been at a disadvantage because the only .44WCF I've ever chrono'd was a carbine and my .45 Colt rifle has the 24 inch tube. Those tests showed the .45 slightly ahead, that five extra inches of barrel makes a difference with The Holy Black.

[w44wcf]

Pards,

I recently purchased a box of .45 Revolver Ball cartridges made for the 1909 Colt double action revolver.
I found the cartridges to be the same dimension as the .45 Colt with the exception of the rim.
The rim diameter on these cartridges was noticeably larger and measured .538" dia. average as compared
to .51" for the standard .45 Colt.

Interestingly, the rim on these cartridges has the same width beyond the case diameter as the .44-40, so it
would appear that Frankford Arsenal used the .44-40 as a guide when developing tha dimenaions for this cartridge.

Here then is a .45 Colt case that could have been chambered in Winchester / Marlin rifles if the rim diameter of the
standard .45 Colt was a concern......but, apparently, that wasn't, thus eliiminating that theory of why the .45 Colt
was not chambered in early lever action rifles.

 

w44wcf

[Paladin UK]

thus eliiminating that theory of why the .45 Colt was not chambered in early lever action rifles. 

Elementary my dear Watson!!

Paladin (What lurvs 45LC ) UK

[Cuts Crooked]

Pards,

I recently purchased a box of .45 Revolver Ball cartridges made for the 1909 Colt double action revolver.
I found the cartridges to be the same dimension as the .45 Colt with the exception of the rim.
The rim diameter on these cartridges was noticeably larger and measured .538" dia. average as compared
to .51" for the standard .45 Colt.

Interestingly, the rim on these cartridges has the same width beyond the case diameter as the .44-40, so it
would appear that Frankford Arsenal used the .44-40 as a guide when developing tha dimenaions for this cartridge.

Here then is a .45 Colt case that could have been chambered in Winchester / Marlin rifles if the rim diameter of the
standard .45 Colt was a concern......but, apparently, that wasn't, thus eliiminating that theory of why the .45 Colt
was not chambered in early lever action rifles.

 

w44wcf

Hmmm? Ok, the .45 Colt  was developed fo a pistol that was the 1873 Peacemaker. The cartridge box shown indicates it's contents are for the 1909 Double Action. You don't suppose the specs were changed in the interim do you?

Fact: We know that the original .45 Colt round was made with a smaller/folded rim. Fact: we know that the round later evolved until it reached it's current format. (there have been many examples shown of the various steps in it's evolution) So I don't think that the above example refutes the premise that the original round was not suitable for a lever gun. In truth, that may not be the reason it wasn't done, there are multiple possibilities there, including proprietary jelousy, but this one is a non starter as "proof".