1800's .44's

[Mike Irwin]

Several times here I've made the case for the most popular "cowboy" revolver being a cheap .32 or .38 break top or solid frame made by one of the many companies that were around at the time.

S&W made over half a million small-frame break tops and solid frames.

Many of those were made after the age of the cowboy had passed (same with many of the other manufacturers like H&R and Iver Johnson, but they were still in abundance.

My Greatgrandfather was a cowboy in the Dakotas at the tail end of the old west age, 1895 or so.

His cowboy revolver was an H&R .32 S&W hammer model break top.

 

[Willie Sutton]

"There are quite a few reasons off the top of my head. One being that Colts were not commonly in that caliber"


Total production numbers of .44-40 v/s .45 Colt SAA's "thru 1910" anyone? 1910 picked as that was likely towards the end of use of these as a primary means of defense and utility, so a comparison of production numbers in that time period would be educational. Then a look within the subset of .45 Colts to see the percentage sold to civilians v/s the percentage sold to the military. My bet is that total sales to civilians favored the .44-40.

Experts?



Willie

.

 

[BlueTrain]

Well, I'm no expert but I have some information that may be of interest. My information here is through 1940 when it essentially went out of production for many years.

As I mentioned before, total production during that period was only about 310,000, not counting Bisley and target models, which was another 46,000 revolvers in round numbers.

Nearly half of the production was in .45 Colt. About 70,000 was in .44-40, 48,000 in .38-40 and 43,000 in .32-40. There were also another 20,000 in .41. All the rest were in two dozen other different calibers.

I would have to say the SAA retained a lot of popularity after 1910 and Elmer Keith would probably have had something to add to when he thought the end of that era was. However, you may be correct in guessing that the .44-40 was probably the most popular chambering for civilians, most likely because of the rifles that were also chambered for it.

 

[Willie Sutton]

Thanks

So it looks like about half of them were chambered in dual revolver/rifle calibers and the other half in .45 Colt, a revolver only chambering. Be interesting to see how the .45 statistics are spread between civil and military purchasers. The operative question is "how many civilians actually bought a .45 Colt as opposed to a dual rifle/revolver cartridge".

As for civilian use of the .45, I am certain that many of the .45 Colt chamberings owned by civilians at the time were bring-back revolvers... soldiers being the same then then as in all history.

The numbers of .38-40 and .32-40 sold are interesting. Seems that about half of the civilian shooters thought that either a .38 or a .32 was perfectly adequate. Hard to imagine buying that large frame SAA in a .32, but practical is as practical does.

I put the 1910 date on the search as I think we can pretty certainly say that this represents the time period of dual military/civilian sales v/s later civilian only sales numbers, and I wanted to see how sales statistics looked when both civilians and military buyers were buying in roughly equal quantities.


Willie

.

 

[Gary L. Griffiths]

The Civil War had ended less than ten years earlier and immediately after a war is always a difficult time to think about changing anything, there being warehouses full of firearms that would soon be obsolete.

True. Which is where we came up with the Trapdoor Springfield. Originally called the Allen Conversion, it used stocks, barrels, and some parts from Springfield .58 Cal rifled muskets, with the barrels drilled out and relined, chambered for the .50-70 Gov't cartridge.

43,000 in .32-40

I think you mean .32-20. The .32-40 was a long, tapered-cased rifle cartridge very popular with target shooters. I used to have some John Wayne Commemorative Winchesters chambered in .32-40, and still have some boxes of the commemorative ammo in my gun safe. It was about the same length as the .45-70 -- way too big to have ever been chambered in a Colt 1873.

 

[BlueTrain]

By 1910, the army had been using double-action Colt revolvers in .38 Colt, so I doubt they, the army, had bought any for the previous 20 years. I also have my doubts about "bring backs," then or now. Any such firearm brought back with you from the army would have been stolen government property. However, the army was selling them by then, to be sure. I have no information on how many the army acquired. Some were brought back into service during the Philipine Insurrection.

The British actually purchased a few in 1940 from Colt. Also, I recall an article that was published in Military Classics magazine around ten years ago that stated the British even acquired some .44-40 lever actions. Unfortunately, that issue is somewhere in hiding at the moment and I can't relate any more details.

Elmer Keith's first six shooter was a .32-20, I believe.

I also ran across an additional tidbit about another .44, the .44 Russian. S&W produced about 250,000 revolvers for the Russians in the 1870s. One sometimes reads stories of someone capturing one of those revolvers in the Pacific during WWII that the Japanese had captured from the Russians in the Russo-Japanese war 40 years earlier. The .44 Special was not introduced until 1907.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Blue,

That would have been 32-20.

The 32-40 was a rifle round.

The Japanese also purchased about 20000 No 3s from S&W in the 1880s.

 

[BlueTrain]

You are correct. I meant .32-20. We even had a .32-40 Winchester single shot at home, which I never saw anyone shoot.

 

[Bob Wright]

The Turkish contracts, and I believe the Japanese contracts, were chambered for the .44 Henry rimfire.

Remember the first No.3 Models submitted for Army consideration were .44 Henry rimfire.

According to Roy Jinks, the first No.3 was .44 Henry rimfire. The Army returned it saying they wanted a centerfire. S&W changed the gun from rimfire to centerfire, "without changing chamber dimensions." Comparing a .44 Henry Flat with a .44 S&W American would bear this out. I have seen unmarked specimens of .44 S&W American sold as .44 Henry Centerfire and .44 Adams.

Bob Wright

 

[Mike Irwin]

" and I believe the Japanese contracts, were chambered for the .44 Henry rimfire."

Nope.

All Japanese Smith & Wesson No. 3s delivered as part of the contract with the Japanese military were in .44 Russian.

Other than the guns made for Turkey, very few New Model No. 3s were chambered in .44 rimfire.

In the first, or American series, only about 200 were chambered for the .44 rimfire. In the second model Americans it is thought that fewer than 100 were chambered in .44 rimfire.

An American in .44 rimfire brings a substantial premium.

 

[BlueTrain]

As you probably all know, Elmer Keith replaced his .32-20 with a .45 Colt (before switching to .44 Special). He also mentioned somewhere in one of his books something about carrying a small revolver in a pocket on his chaps. I didn't search for it and I don't remember what it was.

 

[tipoc]

From about 1871 to 73 the U.S. Army did use the .44 S&W American in the S&W #3 revolver. It was also used in the Merwin & Hubert Army revolver. This was an outside lubricated black powder round that was later also loaded and sold commercially till about 1940. A 205 or so grain bullet at around 700 fps.

The Army also used the 44 Colt at the same time frame, 1870-73, in the cartridge conversion of the Colt 1860 percussion revolvers and the Remington Model 1875 Army revolver. This was also an outside lubed bullet. Used by only a few years by the Army it hung around on the commercial market till about 1940. It held about the same weight bullet as the 44 American at about the same velocity.

Seems (meaning I'm not sure) that the military wanted to standardize on a heavier bullet and higher velocity of modern design and the 45 Colt (and the Schofield round) fit the bill better than the available 44s.

tipoc

 

[Bob Wright]

The Merwin-Hulbert revolver was not chambered for the .44 S&W but for the .44 MH cartridge, it was only incicnetal that the S&W round would chamber and fire in the M&H guns. Though called "Army" it was never purchased by the Government for military acceptance. It was used by the US Post Office, though. The P.O. guns were .44-40 caliber though.

It is interesting to note that the Merwin Hulbert guns were marked for the ".44-73" cartridge, referring to the .44 W.C.F. Model 1873.

Here's some .44s from Frankford Arsenal:

As a matter of note, the .44 Remington and .44 Colt cartridges are not readily interchangable. There is the mistaken belief that the M1875 Remington could take either cartridge, since Army packets were marked "For Colt and Remington Revolvers." This alluded to the cartridge conversions of the Remington Model 1858 cap-and-ball revolvers. The .44 Remington cartridge was not introduced until 1875 or so.

Bob Wright

 

[tipoc]

Thanks for the clarifications Bob. Though M&H did, as I said, make guns for the 44 S&W American (at least according to Barnes) in addition to 44 M&H. I did not mean to imply that the M&H was adopted by the military.

Now is the ops question answered? Why the 45 Colt rather than a 44 caliber for the militaries sidearm?

It's clear why they were not interested in the 44-40 in a long gun.

tipoc

 

[10-96]

Oh yeah, it's perfectly clear as mud, lol. Seriously, this thread has been such an inteesting read- I hate to see it come to an end. There has certainly been some great and fascinating information traded here!

 

[Bob Wright]

To answer the question that keep cropping up, why did the military want the .45?

From what I have read, Colt made the Single Action Army revolver and UMC developed the cartridge for it. This was submitted to the Army Ordnance Board who liked it and bought it.

In short, it was the combination of the Colt and the .45 Colt round. I've found no better explanation.

Bob Wright

 

[tipoc]

According to Alexander Rose in his very useful book "American Rifle" In the 1870 U.S. Army military trials for a new rifle of the 41 entrants into the trials only one was a repeater, that was the Spencer rifle. Winchester, knowing that Army Ordnance disapproved of repeating rifles did not submit any for trial. The army did not believe repeating rifles (rifles that could be reloaded by working a bolt or a lever) were fit for combat. It chose the single shot Springfield rifle which had been used as a muzzle loader during the Civil War and had been converted into a breech loader. It was pitted against the Remington Rolling Block single shot rifle and the Springfield won.

The Armies chosen round was the 45-70 a round too big and strong for the action of any Winchester, Henry, or Spencer of the time. The army considered none of the rounds that could be used in a repeater to be satisfactory. Even a few years later when the 44-40 was introduced in 1873 it was considered too light weight of a round for the Army and the Winchester rifle unreliable for combat. (The debate around these perspectives of the Die-Hards vs. the Progressives was a deep and long one in the military, Rose in his book covers it well I think, a very readable book.)

At any rate the 44-40 as a rifle round was never considered so when the round was introduced in a companion sidearm, the Colt SAA in 1878, the 45 Colt SAA had already been adopted for use in 1875.

The Army favored large heavy bullets. The 45 Colt was a modern cartridge and was heavier and faster than any available 44 I believe. In a gun that was tougher than most others at the time. It was the official round until 1892 when it was replaced by the 38 Long Colt.

tipoc

 

[BlueTrain]

All of that is correct, particularly the part about the die-hards versus the progressives. I suspect that conflict plays out in all armies at one time or another. I also suspect that one generation's progressives are the next generation's die-hards.

Generally the same thing played out in European armies, particularly those that actually went to war.

Winchester repeating rifles, their lever actions, did see some military use and they did market a so-called musket version that came full stocked. I believe some Winchester lever actions were used in the Russo-Turkish war by the Turks. Mostly, however, it was the day of the single shot rifle and they continued to be used into the First World War in some of African campaigns. There were even new designs introduced and manufactured after repeating bolt actions had become the standard.

 

[Bob Wright]

I, for one, can see one BIG disanvantage to a military lever action.

Lie flat on the ground, hugging as close as possible to the ground. Fire your rifle, then try to work the lever.

Incidentally I found one Winchester Model 95 in Korea, in 7.62 Russian. As I recall, it did not have the clip slots.

Bob Wright

 

[tipoc]

I should clarify that both Henrys and Spencers were used during the Civil War. Over the objections of the chief or military Ordnance. The Army did purchase 12,471 Spensers and 1,731 Henrys. Many more of the repeaters were bought by individual soldiers and units.

Both were very popular with troops. The Henry held 16 rounds of 44 rimfire. Confederate soldiers referred to it as "the damned Yankee rifle that you could load on Sunday and shoot all week". The Spenser shot a 56-56 rimfire round and carried 7 rounds in a tube in the butt stock.

Both were underpowered compared to the 45-70 and the numbers in service were a drop in the bucket compared to the number of Springfields used.

tipoc