45 Long Colt

Have you ever taken a good look at how thin the chamber walls are on a Colt or Uberti revolver chambered for 45 Colt? I was at an auction with a friend recently and he had never realized how thin the metal actually is. This photo shows an Uberti Cattleman cylinder on the left and a Colt 2nd Gen SAA cylinder on the right. Look how thin that metal is. What you can't see is how very thin the metal is between the bottom of the locking bolt slot and the chamber walls. It is even thinner. That is where most cylinders actually fail, the failure starts at the thin point at the bottom of the locking slots and propagates from there. Compare those two cylinders to the 'original model' Ruger Vaquero cylinder in the center. You can visibly see how much more metal is there. What you can't see is Ruger shifted the position of the locking slot so it is no longer over the thinnest portion of the chamber wall. These two features are why the 'original model' Vaquero and standard model Blackhawks are so much stronger than a traditional colt style single action revolver.
Click to expand...

Driftwood Johnson, thank you for taking the time to post the info you posted.

Yes I have looked at the cylinders in many different revolvers and I'm well aware that in most cases the cylinder will be the weakest link when a gun blows.

I'm also aware the bolt notch in the cylinder is the weakest point, besides the depth it's cut the way it's cut can add to a gun having possibilities of developing stress risers, square versus radius cut.

I also know that in most cases the process in the way a gun's metal is manufactured can have a roll in the strength of the metal, the old cast versus forged debate.
Now don't take that wrong as I'm not saying cast is a bad process, as Ruger has been successful with it for years.
However we must keep in mind in most cases a cast part will be thicker for strength in stress areas then a forged part will be.

Getting back to the bolt notch cut in the cylinder, that is my reason for stating that if I was wanting to hot rod the 45 Colt cartridge I would choose the Freedom Arms 45 Colt.
That five shot cylinder is thick and beefy, along with that the bolt notch can be offset to a thicker part of the cylinder, much thicker then Colt, Uberti and Ruger.

I also noticed in the info you posted that European revolvers must be proof tested with proof loads at 30% above SAMMI specs, it also said a manufacture can volunteer to test their guns at higher specs even though it's not mandantory.
I have to wonder what the PSI of the proof loads was that Uberti used when they state in the video of how it was made they tested their guns at 3 times the SAMMI specs.
I can't believe it was 42000 PSI.

Anyway, again I thank you for your time in posting the info.

On a different note, I just came in from shooting a box of ammo at 50 yards through my Cimarron, shooting clay pigeons and the shattered pieces at 50 yards.
I'm very pleased with the gun and I can't wait to get my Cimarron Bisley model I have on order so I can put it through it's paces.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com
 
I've shoot a .45 LC Blackhawk for years. Great gun. So many powder are usable to reload it (today that is important as hunting for just one or two powders is not so easy). There are over a dozen that will do well for the .45LC (or the 44 mag/special).

Except for very expensive makes, the Blackhawk is only pistol that can match the .44 mag (except for some single shots like the Contender).

The reason for the newer Vaqueros not being strong like the old ones is that a smaller frame gun was desired by the Cowboy competitive shooters. They needed a non adjustable sight pistol and so Ruger made the Vaquero for them. Then they wanted it lighter framed for their black powder loads, so Ruger changed the Vaquero to size it like the old Colts. Otherwise, the Ruger would not have sold as well as the imports. Meanwhile the Blackhawk remained in the catalog for those using modern propellants.

There is Smith and Wesson double actions out there too.
 
I have to wonder what the PSI of the proof loads was that Uberti used when they state in the video of how it was made they tested their guns at 3 times the SAMMI specs.
I can't believe it was 42000 PSI.
Click to expand...

That particular video has a narration read by somebody who is simply reading text. And the text is clearly incorrect. There are several other errors in it too. It was not written by an engineer or gun person, it was written by somebody for a TV show. So the narration was simply wrong. As i have said several times now, their cylinders are proofed with loads that develop 1.3 X the pressure of standard maximum loads.


I also know that in most cases the process in the way a gun's metal is manufactured can have a roll in the strength of the metal, the old cast versus forged debate.
Now don't take that wrong as I'm not saying cast is a bad process, as Ruger has been successful with it for years.
However we must keep in mind in most cases a cast part will be thicker for strength in stress areas then a forged part will be.
Click to expand...

Regarding cast parts, cylinders have not been made from cast metal for a long, long time. Way, way back in the early days of revolver manufacture, perhaps in the 1830s, cylinders may have been made from a cast part. The very early Tip Up S&W revolvers had cast iron frames. Many were marked as second quality and sold at a discount because of imperfections in the castings. Interestingly enough, those second quality guns are highly sought after by collectors today because they are rare. Cast iron in the early days was not reliable, it tended to be porous and have impurities cast in. These impurities weakened the metal. In the early days of revolvers, the mid 19th Century, revolver frames and cylinders were made of a material called malleable iron, or wrought iron. This is very different from cast iron. Cast iron is the material typically used in objects like an anvil. Very strong in compression, but not very strong in tension, which is what a revolver cylinder needs. Because of the impurities in it, cast iron cannot be forged. It simply will not take a new shape, it will break instead. Wrought iron or malleable iron is very different. Less porous and less impurities than cast iron. When you see a blacksmith heating iron cherry red and reshaping it with a hammer, that is wrought iron, not cast iron.

Malleable iron was used by firearms manufacturers for many years instead of steel. Until the Bessemer process was perfected in 1855, steel was very expensive to make. It could only be made in small quantities in craftsman type processes and it was very expensive. Gun barrels and other parts before the Bessemer process were usually made of iron. Wrought iron, not cast iron. Your typical flintlock rifle barrel was made of one flat piece of iron formed into a hollow shape around a mandrel and then welded along one long seam. Probably the only parts of a flintlock that were steel were the striking surface of the frizzen and the springs. Most of the rest was malleable iron. Even after the Bessemer process made good quality steel available after 1855, many firearms manufacturers continued using malleable iron for gun parts. Frames and cylinders of the Colt Single Action Army were made of malleable iron up until mid 1883, when low/medium carbon steels began to be used. That's why the Walker Colt had a reputation for blowing up. The malleable iron cylinder could not take the pressure generated by the massive powder charges it could contain. My 1st Model Schofiled, made in 1875, has an iron frame, not steel. The first Winchester Model 1873 rifles had iron, not steel frames. But don't be confused. The malleable iron cylinders of these Colts were made by machining the cylinders from bar stock, not casting.

But I digress. The Investment Casting process that Ruger uses for its parts today is very different than the old process for casting steel or iron. It is made possible my modern high strength alloys that did not exist much before Ruger came along.

Even so, Ruger does not use investment castings for their cylinders. Ruger machines their cylinders from bar stock, just like every other revolver manufacturer has done for over 100 years. They make their barrels from barrel blanks they buy from other vendors. Barrel blanks that have been machined, not cast.
 
The reason for the newer Vaqueros not being strong like the old ones is that a smaller frame gun was desired by the Cowboy competitive shooters. They needed a non adjustable sight pistol and so Ruger made the Vaquero for them. Then they wanted it lighter framed for their black powder loads, so Ruger changed the Vaquero to size it like the old Colts. Otherwise, the Ruger would not have sold as well as the imports. Meanwhile the Blackhawk remained in the catalog for those using modern propellants.
Click to expand...

Very few Cowboy Action shooters actually use Black Powder. I am one of the rare ones. We only make up about 10% of all the Cowboy Action Shooters. The rest all use Smokeless. The reason Ruger introduced the smaller New Vaquero was they perceived that the CAS market wanted a revolver sized more like the original Colt Single Action Army. The 'original model' Vaquero was built on the same sized frame as the Blackhawk, roughly 10% larger than a Colt. Ruger simply provided what they perceived the CAS market wanted. And as soon as they did, a clamor went up for the older, larger style Vaquero, which Ruger never re-introduced. So much for market research.
 
I took my new to me Ruger Blackhawk 45 Colt out today. First 4 rounds fired were Corbon 300gr JSP's. Wow!:eek: it has been quite while since I fired rounds like that. I then switched to loads of Laser Cast 250gr RNFP's over 9grs. of Unique in Starline brass with large pistol primers. You know you are firing a big bullet but it is manageable and you can keep all rounds in the vitals.
 
To repeat some good info, the best bang for your buck is going to be with a Ruger Blackhawk convertible model .45 Colt and .45 ACP. You can buy them online brand new for under $600 all day long, check out GunBroker or Gallery of Guns, something to that effect.

The gun will last ten lifetimes of hard use and is strong enough to handle the warm .45 Colt loads, even if you don't use them, the option of being able to is an important aspect to consider. By buying the convertible model you get the second .45 ACP cylinder which greatly helps out, as .45 ACP is plentiful and it gives you two options, three really if you count the .45 Super too.

I've got a 5.5" Blackhawk Bisley that is a convertible model and it's one gun I'll never get rid of, it's accurate and hits hard. I can shoot a 230gr ball .45 ACP, or a 250gr hardcast cowboy load or I can load up a 330gr hardcast to over 1,300 fps in case the T-rex comes back to life.
 
I did a little more researching on the pressure testing of the Cimarron (Uberti) SA revolver in 45 Colt.

Here in the States SAAMI specs for the 45 Colt are 14,000 PSI, in European countries the CIP sets the standard pressure of the 45 Colt at 16,000 PSI.

As Driftwood Johnson said earlier the CIP requires European manufactures to test their revolvers with proof loads at least 30% greater then what they set as standard loads, however European companies can volunteer to test with higher PSI proof loads if they desire.

Therefore the Cimarron (Uberti) SA revolver was proof tested at least with loads 30% greater then 16,000 PSI which would be 20,800 PSI.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com
 
I guess they don't have a huge following, but I kinda found it odd that the Uberti 1875 and 1890 Remington's haven't been mentioned. I have one of each- and ordered a .45ACP cylinder from either VTI or Taylor's- can't remember which at the moment. But anyway- they have been great revolvers that both arrived with a very good feel to the actions. I'd been tempted a few times to have Long Hunter's in Amarillo do the CAS type action jobs on them- but I don't competition shoot with them, so they're close enough to suit me.

What I like most about them is that they have the wide triggers and are stretched in the distance between the trigger and grip. For whatever reason, that extra length between grip and trigger feels much better to me than on the Colt clones.
 
"10-96, I see in your signature about using the term "long colt", is that not what it is really called?"

There have been countless threads on what to call the cartridge, with one side screaming YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS and the other side screaming NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Please search TFL and you'll turn up threads going back years.


But, this thread is not going to turn into yet another pointless argument about which is proper -- another fight isn't going to solve what will never be solved.

Any posts that push this thread in that direction will be deleted.
 
wasn't trying to steer into an argument, just wanted be sure I ws using the proper nomenclature, since I AM shopping for what I assumed to be a long colt, I just call it that because that it what I read it as in a reloading journal. all good, what is the other name? long cartridge?

but as long colt is acceptable, that is what I will keep calling it

but if you could answer my previous question, what is a Richards extractor and other?
 
Last edited:
Many cartridges have more than one accepted name.

9mm Luger, 9mm Parabellum, 9x19, 9mm NATO, for example.

.30 Winchester Center Fire, .30-30 Winchester, .30 Winchester, is another example.

Those are accepted with equanimity, and everyone is happy because they know what cartridge you're talking about.

But, let someone utter the word Long in between .45 and Colt, and a certain segment of the shooting fraternity goes ape crap.

The litmus test, as far as I'm concerned, is if you walk into a gun store and say you want .45 Colt ammo vs. .45 Long Colt ammo, are you going to get the ammo you want because people know that both names are used to reference the same cartridge?

The answer is, bluntly, yes.

Simple answer, use whichever one you feel comfortable using.
 
what is a Richards ejector, and a Richard-mason conversion ring?? on an uberti
Click to expand...

I believe these were parts used to convert open top cap and ball revolvers to cartridge revolvers.

As Uberti makes several different replica models of early revolvers to be like the originals I believe that's what they are referring to.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com
 
So the Mason-Richards ring is the device that converts, say the 1958 Remington from cap and ball to a ctg firing pistol?

(lets get back to the OP related stuff)
 
going shopping again tomorrow ,wanna get my hands on some uberti's. if I don't fall in love with any, most likely I will be deciding on which ruger to buy on friday
 
So the Mason-Richards ring is the device that converts, say the 1958 Remington from cap and ball to a ctg firing pistol?
Click to expand...

Risking being overly picky, the Mason-Richards ring was specific to the Mason-Richards conversion.

Most of the cartridge conversions of percussion revolvers involved machining off the rear of the cylinder, where the nipples were, so cartridges could be inserted directly into the chambers from the rear. Most of these revolvers then had a backing plate screwed to the frame to make up for the lost space. Many of these conversions were made for rimfire cartridges, so the hammer nose would be reshaped into a rimfire firing pin. The firing pin would extend forward through a slot or hole in the backing plate to reach the cartridges. Usually there would also be a loading gate built into the backing plate to allow cartridges to be loaded without removing the cylinder the way Clint Eastwood did it in the movies. Some conversion pistols used centerfire cartridges and some had a firing pin mounted in the backing plate, with a flat faced hammer to strike the firing pin.

http://www.vtigunparts.com/store/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=30&cat=Uberti+Richard+Mason

Some of the later Colt 'conversion' models had cylinders designed specifically for cartridges, so there was no need to saw of the nipples and no backing plate was needed.

And some conversions had a completely separate backing plate that came off with the cylinder. Remingtons were converted both ways. Some were sent back to the factory to be converted to cartridges with a backing plate. Others were converted by individual gunsmiths with a cap that was fitted to the cylinder without a backing plate bolted to the frame. The R&D conversion cylinders for modern 1858 Remingtons work the latter way. These cylinders have a separated firing pin for each chamber.

RemmieandCylinder.jpg
 
I saw something online recently that claimed that it took upwards 40 man hours to perform some of these conversion, and that making a new gun from scratch was actually cheaper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top