john browning and colts .41 caliber prototype.. did i discover what it was?...

J

jason41987

New member
hey everyone.. ive been doing some research into the early partnership and design between john browning and colt, they were developing pistols for military trials and were originally working on a 41 caliber cartridge.. would have had a .400" bullet...

anyway.. i was comparing the .38ACP, and the .45ACP, and ive found a couple similarities... the 45acp is roughly a 32mm long 1100-1200fps cartrige.. the .38ACP is roughly a 32mm long 1100-1200fps cartridge....so i was thinking.. their .41 caliber cartridge probably would have been 32mm long, roughly 1100-1200fps which would have given it the dimensions of the 10mm cartridge, but lower pressure giving it the velocity and energy of a .40S&W..

so, is it safe to say the prototype ".41ACP" had roughly a 23mm case, 32mm overall length, and operated at velocities of roughly 1100-1200fps?
 
That would be on the high side unless they cut bullet weight way back not much more than .38.
Bullet diameter might have been .386" as for .41 Long Colt with inside lubricated hollowbase bullet. I think that is where the later 9.8mm Colt went.
 
I think what you've discovered is the 9.8mm Roumanian prototype.

Around 1912 Roumania was looking for a new handgun and cartridge.

Here's a discussion on the subject from a TFL thread in 2002.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-132119.html

Whoops, wait a second, I'm WRONG! (write that down, I'm rarely wrong! :))

That thread also talks about the .41 Browning cartridge, which he apparently was developing in the Model of 1902 platform.
 
No, it would not be safe to say that. You have a sample of 2. That is hardly a definitive pattern.

The .45 ACP wasn't an 1100-1200 fps cartridge. It was more like an 800-850 cartridge.
 
im basing this on modern loads.. modern .38ACP, modern .45ACP, which shared the same powders then and now, as powders improved, so did both of them, and so would a .41 caliber mystery cartridge, thats just common sense... and since i dont have original load data from 1900-1910, i can only go by the modern load data i have now using similar powders at similar pressures with the only variables being alleged case capacity and bullet weights
 
Not very mysterious; Browning based the .32 ACP on the .32 S&W, the .38 ACP on the .38 S&W. He first tried to use the .32 and .38 revolver cartridges as they were (see his early patent applicatons), but soon found out that the rims caused feeding problems in a self-loading pistol, so he reduced the rims as much as possible to get them to work. Both rounds were designed to headspace on the rim, not on the case mouth. The .380 ACP and .45 ACP came later, after he heard about Luger supporting a cartridge on the case mouth and decided to do likewise. In fact, he went Luger one better and made the .380 ACP and .45 ACP straight cased, instead of tapered as the 9mm Luger is.

Of course, he had to use smokeless powder, since the black powder used in most ammunition at the time did not have the pressure or the pressure curve to operate an auto pistol in a satisfactory manner. (That is one of the major reasons auto pistols were not developed sooner.)

Jim
 
im basing this on modern loads.. modern .38ACP, modern .45ACP, which shared the same powders then and now, as powders improved, so did both of them, and so would a .41 caliber mystery cartridge, thats just common sense... and since i dont have original load data from 1900-1910, i can only go by the modern load data i have now using similar powders at similar pressures with the only variables being alleged case capacity and bullet weights
Click to expand...

Regardless of how you do the calculations and what you infer from other catridges or make up (for data not available) from limited historical information, there is no way to show that your result is correct for the .41.

You have been selective in the rounds used for patterning without justifying why. If you had looked into the .25 ACP, .32 ACP and .380 ACP, 9mm Browning Long, your overall lengths would have been greatly reduced. The .380 and .32 both had offerings in your stated performance range.
 
I don't see why the OAL of .41 Auto would be any different from .38 Auto, they were testing it in a modified .38 gun, after all.
But current load data does not apply to 110 year old components and materials of construction.

I'd expect something like a 155-165 grain bullet at 1000 fps, depending on the actual caliber.
 
Jason41987 said:
im basing this on modern loads.. modern .38ACP, modern .45ACP, which shared the same powders then and now, as powders improved, so did both of them, and so would a .41 caliber mystery cartridge, thats just common sense... and since i dont have original load data from 1900-1910, i can only go by the modern load data i have now using similar powders at similar pressures with the only variables being alleged case capacity and bullet weights
Click to expand...
The .45 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol) was developed specifically to reproduce the ballistics of the earlier "Short Colt" military revolver round, a 230-grain projectile at 830 feet-per-second. That's still about the velocity of a standard .45 ACP cartridge. To get up to the 1100 fps range you're claiming, you have to get into +P loadings.

Further, it appears that you are conflating the .38 ACP and the .38 Super. They use the same case, but the .38 Super is loaded to higher pressures and is -- essentially -- the +P version of the .38 ACP. Which is why ALL .38 Super ammo is marked "+P" and why you can't buy .38 ACP ammo today.

The specifications for the original .45 ACP cartridge, as adopted for the M1911 pistol, are readily available on innumerable web sites.
 
naught, im basing it on the fact they went from .38ACP, converted the same design to .41 caliber before developing and going with the .45acp... .32acp and .25acp werent in the mix, and the handgun was designed for and chambered in roughly .32mm long cartridges... meaning it would have been medium ground between the 45acp and 38acp (not to be confused with the .380)

so if youre going to make a comparison you have to expect pressures would be similar, overall length would be similar, and the .41 cartridge would have been in the same class as the 38 and 45acp, but obviously, firing a .40 caliber bullet

i think some of you are confusing .38ACP and .380ACP, two entirely different cartridges... .38ACP has the same physical dimensions as a .38 super... .380ACP is just a small, low powered cartridge for blowback pistols and wasnt being used in the prototype handguns in question
 
also... drop the velocities down to whatever you want... the .41 caliber would have had an energy similar to a modern .40S&W... it most likely would have been the same length as 45acp and .38acp.. which would have made it the length of the 10mm...

all the ACP cartridges had a pressure of 21,000 to around 25,000 PSI... so it would be foolish to assume a cartridge that came right before .45acp and .38acp would have had more than that kind of pressure... which would have put it in the performance category as .40S&W which is considerably shorter than all of these, but operates at a much higher pressure
 
The original design for the .45 ACP was a 200 grain bullet at 900 fps, but it was later revised into the now standard 230 grain bullet at 850 fps. Saying the .45 ACP is an 1100-1200 fps round is being very generous. You have to step up to a .45 Super to reliably get those numbers, and that certainly wasn't around at the turn of the century.
 
I know the ".41 ACP" was under development and model guns in that calilber likely were made. But it was not the 9.8mm, which came much later and would not be .41 caliber, it would be .38.5 caliber. (Yes, I know the name of a cartridge often bears little relation to the actual diameter!) ;)

I see no reason guns for the .41 ACP could not have been made, but it would most likely have required new forging dies and new tooling. At a time when Colt was selling about all the suto pistols they could make and working toward a military contract, there was just no place for a .41 ACP.

The Army was set on .45 caliber and it would have been a job to persuade them to accept another caliber, no matter how good it might have been. (And any successful salesman will tell you that you give the customer what he wants; you don't try to talk him into something else.)

It would have been better for Colt's bottom line, crucial for any private company, to concentrate on making a .45 pistol looking toward the big bucks from army adoption than to experiment with a new caliber no one had indicated any need for.

Jim
 
I bet the .41 auto, had it come out, would have had respectable sales numbers.

The .41 Long Colt was, at this time, still a pretty popular round; even the .41 Short Colt still had a following at this time. So I think the transition would have been fairly easy for many people.

Even Smith & Wesson looked at developing a .41 caliber revolver round around this time (may have been some years earlier, can't remember) but apparently dropped it more from a manufacturing capacity standpoint than anything else.
 
One other consideration....behind the .44-40, Winchester's most popular levergun round was the .38-40 using a .401" bullet. In some areas, it sold better than both the .44-40 and the .45Colt. Since JMB tried to replicate the .45C performance in the .45ACP, he probably wanted to do the same with his .41 round.....
 
Colt tried again with the 9.8 auto, again with the .41 Special. Neither made it into production. I have only heard the vaguest about an early .41 S&W but it obviously went nowhere fast.

I don't know about Mr Browning particularly wanting to do anything, ballistics-wise. The .41 Auto was a response to inadequacies of the .38 revolver, abandoned when the Army clearly determined to go back to the .45. He was not only a designer but a businessman. He designed what he or his manufacturing contacts thought would sell.
 
i have no doubt the .41 would have sold, .41 colt did, modern .40S&W sells very well, i think they were mostly trying to gain favor with the military, win a military contract so they focused specifically on what the military asked for which was a .45 caliber round, and a grip safety... i have no idea what their other specifications were at that time though, besides those two... with no specifications the 1911 probably would have turned out to be a .41 without a grip safety
 
"Colt tried again with the 9.8 auto, again with the .41 Special."

In neither case was market reception the reason for these two rounds never as both rounds were abandoned before they could ever hit production.

As I understand it, the 9.8 was never intended for distribution in the United States, and was largely abandoned when the Roumanian military decided to go with another handgun.

The .41 Colt Special (for lack of a better name really, I don't think Colt ever called it that) got bogged down in the Depression then World War II.

After World War II Colt (like most other companies) coasted for a few years because demand for existing products was so high, and after the consumer market started to taper back and become sated in the early 1950s, Colt had made the conscious decision to focus more on U.S. Gov't contracts.
 
I have posted in other threads about these mysterious pistols in experimental chamberings. They are interesting, partly because of what I imagine the size of the pistols might have been. You all may recall the relative petite size of the Star BM (and BKM, in alloy) from, oh, 30 years ago. That was always what I wish Colt had made. As it was, the .45s from Colt were very likely a lot more popular than the same guns in either .38 Super or 9mm but that's still relative. I think .45 autos became more popular later. Anyway, Colt quality was so much higher than Star ever was.

I always had the impression the .32 ACP and the .38 ACP (& .38 Super) were related and that the .380 ACP and the .45 ACP were related in the same way in respect to the case design. Yet having owned pistols in all of those calibers (.38 Super but not .38 ACP), there doesn't seem to be any practical and functional difference that I could say had anything to do with case design.

The 9mm Browning Long is the odd man out and had a long history of military service. But it was an FN product and probably had nothing to do with any Colt experimental product. And furthermore, any experimental cartridge is going to be just that: experimental, even though it may be properly marked with a give designation. There may be variations in the design, chiefly in length. It is confusing that the FN 1903 has the same model name as the Colt 1903 and they even look the same, both being enclosed hammer fired pistols. Supposedly the FN 1903 pistols used in Sweden stayed in service until replaced by--wait for it--Glocks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top