45 long colt cartridge

Your edit caught my point. Winchester did indeed make ammunition in competition with UMC. The Colt angle also has merit for them not to use the dreaded WCF on the headstamp.

What it all really boils down to is this is all ClemBerts fault. He started it and should be dealt with appropriately when he's not paying attention.:D
 
Hamlet:
Madam, how like you this play?

Queen:
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230
 
"BTW it's 44 Winchester Central Fire."

Oddly enough, both Center and Central fire appear to have been used by Winchester almost interchangeably.
 
I believe that the "Long Colt" was only applied to the cartridge after the development of the .45 ACP cartridge. "Long Colt" would designate the rimmed revolver round, while "Colt .45" or "Army .45" refers to the ACP load.

Now, instead of just one type of .45 Colt round, you have two types, one very different from the other. I bet many people unwittingly purchased the wrong ammunition shortly after the .45 ACP came out.
 
This forum certainly gets academic at times, don't it?

I also understand that yet another .45 Colt cartridge was introduced when the army (and Marines, too, I think) adopted the New Service revolver in that caliber, around 1909, if memory serves. It would not fit in a Single Action Army revolver because the rim was larger. I have not consulted the Cartridges of the World on this. The idea was to give a larger rim for the extractor to work on in the New Service revolver, which was not necessary on the SAA because there was no extractor, just the ejector rod. It could still be loaded into alternate holes in the cylinder of an SAA if necessary but there may have been none left on active service at the time anyway.

The army then and now does not have the same considerations that we as civilian consumers might have and so when they bought all those new revolvers, they just bought the ammuntion they needed and were happy. It only had to fit their own revolvers and there were no other considerations.

Do you suppose some of those revolvers were converted to .45 ACP later on? And do you suppose that Patton used army issued ammuntion for his own personal Colt Single Action Army revolver that he was famous for?
 
I think what Bluetrain may be refering to was actually made for the 1917 New Service.
The 1909 New Service was chambered for standard 45LC or 45 Colt if you will.
The 1917 New Service was introduced in 45ACP using half moon clips. The 1917 was to supplement the 1911's allready in service.
One of the ammo companys introduced the 45 AutoRim cartridge to precluded the need for the half moon clips. It was baciscally a thick rimmed version of the rimless 45ACP cartridge.
 
mykeal said:
Hamlet:
Madam, how like you this play?

Queen:
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230
Click to expand...

Fred:
You like tomaytoes

Ginger:
I like tomahtoes...

"Let's Call the Whole Thing Off", Gershwin & Gershwin
 
I don't know about you fellers, but I only eat 'maters. :p

The only thing that I know about a particular .45 cartridge with a case length of 1.285", bullet diameter of .452 or .454 and a typically common bullet weight of 230 to 255 grains is...if I can find ammo or components cheap enough- I buy them by whatever name it's called. :D
 
I think what Bluetrain may be refering to was actually made for the 1917 New Service.
The 1909 New Service was chambered for standard 45LC or 45 Colt if you will.
Click to expand...

Denster, I'm pretty sure Bluetrain is correct, as the dimensions of my sample cartridges bear this out.

Here's a thread about some of the history of the .45 Colt cartridge. The links in that thread address the M1909 cartridge more specifically:
http://www.coltforum.com/forums/colt-revolvers/32605-45-revolver-ammo.html
 
Nice link and interesting. While I did say the 1909 cartridge was adopted so as to have more of a rim for extraction purposes, I never had any such trouble with the one and only Colt New Service I ever owned. It was a plain commercial example in .45 Colt. Virtually every revolver I ever had, with the exception of .22 rimfires, would dump most of the empties if you opened the cylinder and pointed the gun up. However, cartridges manufactured today are often a little better than ones made over a hundred years ago, so that might explain some of the reasoning.

It is probably worth mentioning that those Single Action Army revolvers had relatively long barrels (relative to what is common today) and that helped them achieve higher velocities than we expect from those cartridges nowadays.

And by the way, seeing as how the Colt Single Action Army revolver was chambered in just about every handgun cartridge that was around back then (and has even been made in 9mm), one would think that the problem of the rim would have come up before.
 
"However, cartridges manufactured today are often a little better than ones made over a hundred years ago, so that might explain some of the reasoning."

I think you've hit very close to the truth.

In the early days of ejector revolvers cartridges were manufactured from drawn copper, which is very soft. A sticky case could result in the ejector ripping through the rim.

Even after brass was adopted, balloon head (folded) cases were common for many years afterward.

Even though these were stronger than the old copper cases, they were still prone to rim tear through if extraction was sticky.
 
balloon head (folded) cases
Click to expand...

Not the same thing from what I have read.

A folded head case is kind of like a rimfire, except it has a centerfire primer pocket or one of the early inside centerfire primers.

A balloon head case has a solid rim but the head is thin enough that the primer pocket bulges into the interior. A cartridge collector can show you UMC brass with that construction and a headstamp of "SH" standing for Solid Head. It IS solid, just not as thick as what is being made now.


The thing I have wondered is why the 1909 was made for a version of.45 Colt as modified with larger rim for better simultaneous extraction and smokeless powder.
In 1906 Frankford Arsenal had published ammunition standards for the new service pistol to replace odds and ends of SAAs, DA Frontiers, and .38 LC sidearms. They specified a rimless cartridge immediately recognizeable as the .45 ACP or very near it, AND a rimmed round of the same length should anybody wish to offer a revolver in the upcoming trials. So I wonder why they ended up with a new 1909 round when they had a 1906 government standard to work with. Maybe they wanted to be able to shoot old inventory of .45 LC and .45 Government (S&W Schofield) in emergencies. I don't know. Does anybody here?

As to rim diameter. I read an article in The Handgunner, Ltd. a British publication back when a free Englishman might own a pistol, describing examination of SAA and Bisley revolvers in .476 Enfield. The author wondered how the guns accomodated the big Enfield (and Webley) cartridges. He took some guns to the Rolls Royce toolroom for measurements and found that the chambers were reamed converging in the cylinder. The casehead was set out far enough for rim clearance and the chamber mouth was still in line behind the barrel. Presumably the firing pin and bushing were relocated but I do not recall that much detail.
 
Last edited:
I believe that Skeeter Skelton may have alluded to the curiosity of the extra-large (compared to the .45 Colt) British cartridges when chambered in the Single Action Army and how they worked around the limitation, so to speak. Clearly this is getting into the finer points of how things were done.

Concerning the matter of why a cartridge was introduced with an even wider rim or flange, if you're British, for the .45 Colt, perhaps they were addressing some problem we are not aware of, something that has been solved in some roundabout way to the extent that we now think it "was always that way." Or possibly, it had already been solved by the time the cartridge itself was officially adopted but the new cartridge was already well under development and had a life of its own. But how much development could that have required anyway?

Two more questions about the cartridges in the link above:

First, none of the bullets of those different .45 caliber cartridges seemed to have a flat point, which I had thought was a characteristic of the .45 Colt, as well as most of the other contemporary Colt branded cartridges. And second, what is "internally primed," if I'm remembering the correct wording?
 
what is "internally primed,"
Click to expand...

Just that. Instead of a separate primer pressed into a pocket in the case head, an internally primed cartridge has the priming compound inside. It is fired by the striker indenting the metal of the cartridge case itself, like a rimfire except for location. There was the Martin, which is a very complex shape that would appear like an external primer the way the metal is pressed. More common were the "bar anvil" and the Benet or cup anvil.
You can see drawings and descriptions along with much else in the field at:
http://www.cartridgecollectors.org/glossary.htm
 
Jim,

I was hurrying and wasn't as precise as I should have been.

But, precision would have required a LOT more time than what I had at that moment. The early cartridge era was a time of HUGE innovation, experimentation, and adaption in the cartridge manufacturing industry.

I've seen some experimental (and some limited production) cartridges that would blow your mind, and which really defy all neat classification.

There were one piece folded balloon head cases, multi-piece balloon head and balloon head folded cases, there were folded solid head cases, there were multipiece folded heads that, because of the construction, technically have a "solid" rim....

It's a real mess.

Here's an illustration that shows some of the more common (but by no means all) of the different type of early cartridge cases.

http://www.frfrogspad.com/miscellf.htm


"First, none of the bullets of those different .45 caliber cartridges seemed to have a flat point, which I had thought was a characteristic of the .45 Colt, as well as most of the other contemporary Colt branded cartridges."

Flat point was the most common, but it wasn't the only type loaded. I've seen vintage round nose .45 LC, as well.



"What is inside primed?"


To expand on Jim's explanation, inside priming was an intermediate step between rimfire and true centerfire primarily resulting from the use of drawn copper cases.

Cartridge is strong enough for a cartridge, but there were a lot of problems in getting a copper case to hold a berdan or a boxer style primer. The copper simply isn't sufficiently robust.

The alternate solution (until deep cup brass drawing technology caught up to the point where brass cases were viable) was inside centerfire priming.

These are two examples of Benet inside primed rounds from my personal collection:

337971597.jpg



The one on the left is a .45 S&W, the one on the right is a .45-70. Both were most likely loaded at the Frankford Arsenal in the middle to late 1870s to early 1880s.

Copper cases and Benet priming was largely a think of the past by the middle 1880s, being replaced with what we recognize today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top