Mike Irwin
Staff
But the .44 Colt and American cartridges are both straight walled.
And either cartridge could have been adapted to a solid frame revolver.
And either cartridge could have been adapted to a solid frame revolver.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
1800's .44's
- Thread starter 10-96
- Start date
2. ease of use in the field. straight walled cartridges have a small ability to clean themselves when they get inserted into the chamber. its why most people use a once fired cartridge case to clean out chambers when a special is used in a magnum..
Straight walled cartridges have more blow by. It's the thin necked 44-40, 38-40 bottlenecks that are left in the chamber for cleaning as they almost perfectly seal the action off.
the original heeled bullet in the 44 colt met the diameter requirements, and can be made from the us government pattern mold for heel based connicals in a colt army revolver....
it just didnt have powder capacity they wanted. and that bullet was used to create the upcased 45 long colt.
it just didnt have powder capacity they wanted. and that bullet was used to create the upcased 45 long colt.
Ideal Tool
Moderator
Hello, I think the main problem with the .44 Colt and American ctgs. was the fact they used a heeled bullet. The Russian officers who took part in the big buffalo hunting party of 1869, liked the big S&W topbreak..but not it's ammunition..they insisted on an inside lubed bullet..which resulted in the excellent .44 Russian...the forerunner to the later .44 special. Outside lubed ammunition was/is a mess to handle..especially in hot dusty conditions of the west.
Bob Wright
New member
.Hello, I think the main problem with the .44 Colt and American ctgs. was the fact they used a heeled bullet. The Russian officers who took part in the big buffalo hunting party of 1869, liked the big S&W topbreak..but not it's ammunition..they insisted on an inside lubed bullet..which resulted in the excellent .44 Russian...the forerunner to the later .44 special. Outside lubed ammunition was/is a mess to handle..especially in hot dusty conditions of the west
If you will examine Russian made ammunition of the period you will find it was outside lubricated, not inside lubricated as is generally supposed. They did eliminate the heeled bullet, but it remains whether they actually designed that or not. As to inside lubrication, it appears that UMC was the first to introduce that.
Bob Wright
Mike Irwin
Staff
Bob's absolutely correct.
About halfway down this page http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...an&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&gbv=2&tbm=isch&um=1&itbs=1 there's shown an assortment of vintage .44 Russian rounds, including one early .44 Russian loaded in Russia, which has exposed grease grooves.
Apparently the Russians didn't object to the exposed lubrication as much as they objected to the heeled bullet. My guess is that they lacked the technology and machinery to cast and load heeled bullet cartridges.
I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that it was the United States Cartridge Company that developed the concept of grease grooves covered by the case neck. Hard to say for sure, though, as there was so much development going on at this time.
What can be said for certain, though, is that UMC loaded a VERY peculiar "solution" to the lubrication probem.
In the picture above, the 5th cartridge is what I call a "lube squirter" bullet.
The lubrication was contained in a hollow "lube chamber" in the base of the cartridge and covered with a wad. There were three or more holes in the bullet's sides or ogive connected to the lube chamber.
On firing, the pressure pushed the wad into the lube chamber and squirted the lube into the barrel.
What's even more interesting is that D. B. Wesson is the one who designed the bullet. UMC manufactured it for S&W until the early 1900s.
Here's a site that shows a sectioned bullet with the lub and tubes.
http://cartridgecollectors.org/cmo/cmo06oct.htm
About halfway down this page http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...an&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&gbv=2&tbm=isch&um=1&itbs=1 there's shown an assortment of vintage .44 Russian rounds, including one early .44 Russian loaded in Russia, which has exposed grease grooves.
Apparently the Russians didn't object to the exposed lubrication as much as they objected to the heeled bullet. My guess is that they lacked the technology and machinery to cast and load heeled bullet cartridges.
I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that it was the United States Cartridge Company that developed the concept of grease grooves covered by the case neck. Hard to say for sure, though, as there was so much development going on at this time.
What can be said for certain, though, is that UMC loaded a VERY peculiar "solution" to the lubrication probem.
In the picture above, the 5th cartridge is what I call a "lube squirter" bullet.
The lubrication was contained in a hollow "lube chamber" in the base of the cartridge and covered with a wad. There were three or more holes in the bullet's sides or ogive connected to the lube chamber.
On firing, the pressure pushed the wad into the lube chamber and squirted the lube into the barrel.
What's even more interesting is that D. B. Wesson is the one who designed the bullet. UMC manufactured it for S&W until the early 1900s.
Here's a site that shows a sectioned bullet with the lub and tubes.
http://cartridgecollectors.org/cmo/cmo06oct.htm
44/40
Hi there,
Well, the .44 wasn't really the 44/40 yet with the bottleneck. First it was actually an idea after the Spencer when they did the Ball carbine, but even then the 44 was really not considered by the govt. to be as man killing as the 56/50 etc.
Later, the reason that 44/40 was so good in the Winchester was that the ejector could grab the rim of the cartridge vs. where the .45 long colt was even smaller then, the rim, and that's why there was no Winchester that was in .45 colt.
An interesting tid bit, for gun freaks is the story of how in the old days rattlesnakes used to get their heads blown off by a cowboy with a six gun.... remember? Well, that is actually truer than you think because the black powder guns were actually so much slower that shooting at a rattlesnake it would see the bullet coming and actually try to strike at it! That's why more actually had their heads really blown off! Smokeless was way to fast so it didn't give the snake the time to react to it and actually help it take off its head.
Now... does anyone know anything about the Ball carbine? I just got one of the 1100 in existence, and I'm waiting for it in the mail. I need to fine a good gunsmith who has experience to get him to make me another centerfire breach for it, since it's the same caliber and the Spencer 56/50 in rimfire.
Thanks,
Richard
Hi there,
Well, the .44 wasn't really the 44/40 yet with the bottleneck. First it was actually an idea after the Spencer when they did the Ball carbine, but even then the 44 was really not considered by the govt. to be as man killing as the 56/50 etc.
Later, the reason that 44/40 was so good in the Winchester was that the ejector could grab the rim of the cartridge vs. where the .45 long colt was even smaller then, the rim, and that's why there was no Winchester that was in .45 colt.
An interesting tid bit, for gun freaks is the story of how in the old days rattlesnakes used to get their heads blown off by a cowboy with a six gun.... remember? Well, that is actually truer than you think because the black powder guns were actually so much slower that shooting at a rattlesnake it would see the bullet coming and actually try to strike at it! That's why more actually had their heads really blown off! Smokeless was way to fast so it didn't give the snake the time to react to it and actually help it take off its head.
Now... does anyone know anything about the Ball carbine? I just got one of the 1100 in existence, and I'm waiting for it in the mail. I need to fine a good gunsmith who has experience to get him to make me another centerfire breach for it, since it's the same caliber and the Spencer 56/50 in rimfire.
Thanks,
Richard
Bob Wright
New member
Mindful wrote:
That story was told to me over fifty years ago by an old geezer in Arizona. We had shot some rattlers and the fellow observed our shooting and told us this yarn.
We tried to duplicate it, but could not. We photographed rattlesnakes striking, with me doing the photography and a friend of mine getting them to strike. We found that a shutter speed of 1/250 second would freeze the rattler in mid strike. A bullet could not be stopped by shutter speed, taking something like 1/10000 second to even get a blur. This with electronic flash.
After all this biologists told us rattlesnakes could not even see the bullet, they have very poor eyesight.
Incidentally, the muzzle velocity of blackpowder .45 Colt ammunition was just over 900 fps, slightly higher than the smokeless standard of 870 fps.
Bob Wright
An interesting tid bit, for gun freaks is the story of how in the old days rattlesnakes used to get their heads blown off by a cowboy with a six gun.... remember? Well, that is actually truer than you think because the black powder guns were actually so much slower that shooting at a rattlesnake it would see the bullet coming and actually try to strike at it! That's why more actually had their heads really blown off! Smokeless was way to fast so it didn't give the snake the time to react to it and actually help it take off its head.
That story was told to me over fifty years ago by an old geezer in Arizona. We had shot some rattlers and the fellow observed our shooting and told us this yarn.
We tried to duplicate it, but could not. We photographed rattlesnakes striking, with me doing the photography and a friend of mine getting them to strike. We found that a shutter speed of 1/250 second would freeze the rattler in mid strike. A bullet could not be stopped by shutter speed, taking something like 1/10000 second to even get a blur. This with electronic flash.
After all this biologists told us rattlesnakes could not even see the bullet, they have very poor eyesight.
Incidentally, the muzzle velocity of blackpowder .45 Colt ammunition was just over 900 fps, slightly higher than the smokeless standard of 870 fps.
Bob Wright
Mike Irwin
Staff
Yeah, I have to call bogus on that as well.
It's possible, but difficult, to see a handgun bullet in flight, depending on lighting conditions.
Like most hunting snakes, rattlers detect heat and odor better than they can see.
But, here's where it really falls apart for me...
The bullet is traveling 900 feet per second.
If someone is taking a handgun to a rattlesnake, they're probably going to be very close, my guess is within 20 feet or so.
If we say 20 feet, that bullet is going to (if I'm doing the math correctly) cover that distance in 0.0222(repeating) seconds, or about 1/45th of a second.
In that time, the rattler would not only have to pick up the bullet's flight, but would have to react quickly enough to strike at it.
A rattler can accelerate its head from 0 to 60 mph in about a half a second...
I don't think that is nearly quick enough for everything to work out.
It's possible, but difficult, to see a handgun bullet in flight, depending on lighting conditions.
Like most hunting snakes, rattlers detect heat and odor better than they can see.
But, here's where it really falls apart for me...
The bullet is traveling 900 feet per second.
If someone is taking a handgun to a rattlesnake, they're probably going to be very close, my guess is within 20 feet or so.
If we say 20 feet, that bullet is going to (if I'm doing the math correctly) cover that distance in 0.0222(repeating) seconds, or about 1/45th of a second.
In that time, the rattler would not only have to pick up the bullet's flight, but would have to react quickly enough to strike at it.
A rattler can accelerate its head from 0 to 60 mph in about a half a second...
I don't think that is nearly quick enough for everything to work out.
It is said that better than average eyesight is a prerequisite to good shooting, though no doubt some get by with better than average luck. In any event, I know it is possible to see some projectiles in flight.
For instance, it is possible to see a 105-mm howitizer projectile in flight, provided you are standing behind the gun (the best place to be). It is also possible to see very easily a 4.2-in mortar projectile in flight from the side but the projectile is on moving probably at about 800 fps. A howitizer projectile is going maybe twice as fast on a good day. All it looks like is a black dot going away from you.
It has been a while since I've fired a .45 auto but I suspect it would be possible under the right conditions to see the bullet in flight.
For instance, it is possible to see a 105-mm howitizer projectile in flight, provided you are standing behind the gun (the best place to be). It is also possible to see very easily a 4.2-in mortar projectile in flight from the side but the projectile is on moving probably at about 800 fps. A howitizer projectile is going maybe twice as fast on a good day. All it looks like is a black dot going away from you.
It has been a while since I've fired a .45 auto but I suspect it would be possible under the right conditions to see the bullet in flight.
Mike Irwin
Staff
You can definitely see bullets in flight.
Some years ago I was shooting a friend's PPK .32 Auto and you could see the bullets glinting as they went down range.
Earlier this year I took my new Colt out to shoot, .38 Special, 158-gr. cast lead bullets loaded to about 850 fps.
We were under a covered shooting point with a bright sun at a fairly high angle behind us.
The sun was hitting the base of the bullets and reflecting like crazy. They looked like tracers going downrange.
But, in most cases, the snake is going to be on the ground, looking up towards the sky, most likely, which would make it a lot more difficult to pick up the bullet.
I simply don't see it happening.
Some years ago I was shooting a friend's PPK .32 Auto and you could see the bullets glinting as they went down range.
Earlier this year I took my new Colt out to shoot, .38 Special, 158-gr. cast lead bullets loaded to about 850 fps.
We were under a covered shooting point with a bright sun at a fairly high angle behind us.
The sun was hitting the base of the bullets and reflecting like crazy. They looked like tracers going downrange.
But, in most cases, the snake is going to be on the ground, looking up towards the sky, most likely, which would make it a lot more difficult to pick up the bullet.
I simply don't see it happening.
Tipoc said
" Very good points.Yep and early in WWII the Marine Corps refused the Garand and held onto the bolt action Springfield, arguing that the Garand degraded accurate, disciplined fire at distance and encouraged a "spray and pray" mentality."
Actually, wasn't the ultimate (but intermediate) argument/choice between the Garand and the Johnson...the Johnson winning out--for awhile--for the Marines? Btw, shot a Johnson once (my uncle's, brought back from Pacific duty). Though "just" a .30-06 also, what a thumper!
Back to the OP, the .44 vs .45 discussion is a great one, and a very interesting question (and answers). Although the .44 Special didn't exist at the time, there re a number of us that think it is the chambering the Colt SAA was "meant" for! Certainly once the smokeless era emerged. A better pairing of cartridge to firearm I don't know exists, unless it's the .32 H&R Mag (and hypothetically .327 FM) to the Single Six.
" Very good points.Yep and early in WWII the Marine Corps refused the Garand and held onto the bolt action Springfield, arguing that the Garand degraded accurate, disciplined fire at distance and encouraged a "spray and pray" mentality."
Actually, wasn't the ultimate (but intermediate) argument/choice between the Garand and the Johnson...the Johnson winning out--for awhile--for the Marines? Btw, shot a Johnson once (my uncle's, brought back from Pacific duty). Though "just" a .30-06 also, what a thumper!
Back to the OP, the .44 vs .45 discussion is a great one, and a very interesting question (and answers). Although the .44 Special didn't exist at the time, there re a number of us that think it is the chambering the Colt SAA was "meant" for! Certainly once the smokeless era emerged. A better pairing of cartridge to firearm I don't know exists, unless it's the .32 H&R Mag (and hypothetically .327 FM) to the Single Six.
Cap and ball
I'm brand new to this forum ( and a gun novice ) so please thread easy on me. Haha my grandfather left my dad an assortment of guns and I told him I would try and find out a little about each, as I could. It appears you folks are very knowledgable and willing to help so Ill give the first one a shot. The first revolver I think is a muzzle loading revolver, cap and ball, .44 caliber. The marking says Samuel Colt and I was wondering:
1. What the No. 15133 means
2. Is the Pat. Marking a patent number ?
3. Are they worth anything ? I know it was given to my grandfather by a Mr. Belmont Mosser of St. Marys Pa. ( who was president of Kiwanis Int. ) and used by a Col. Shipley in the Civil War. My dad has all of the guns so I don't have a picture of it yet. Any information on this type of gun would be appreciated. Thank you.
I'm brand new to this forum ( and a gun novice ) so please thread easy on me. Haha my grandfather left my dad an assortment of guns and I told him I would try and find out a little about each, as I could. It appears you folks are very knowledgable and willing to help so Ill give the first one a shot. The first revolver I think is a muzzle loading revolver, cap and ball, .44 caliber. The marking says Samuel Colt and I was wondering:
1. What the No. 15133 means
2. Is the Pat. Marking a patent number ?
3. Are they worth anything ? I know it was given to my grandfather by a Mr. Belmont Mosser of St. Marys Pa. ( who was president of Kiwanis Int. ) and used by a Col. Shipley in the Civil War. My dad has all of the guns so I don't have a picture of it yet. Any information on this type of gun would be appreciated. Thank you.