The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The North Corral > Black Powder and Cowboy Action Shooting

Thread Tools
Old March 14, 2013, 05:36 PM   #26
Join Date: August 24, 2012
Posts: 49
8.0 grains of trail boss does not touch the projo. The powder at 8.0 leaves about 1/2" from case mouth to powder, and the bullet seat depth is about .25 which leaves about .25 space. This being said, at the higher loadings there is pressure sign, and I would have to agree that it is better to stay at about 6.5 gr or lower with the trail boss.

Last edited by ketland; March 14, 2013 at 06:57 PM.
ketland is offline  
Old June 6, 2015, 07:28 AM   #27
Bone Charcoal
Junior Member
Join Date: September 13, 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3
Just a comment on terminology.

.45 Long Colt was the correct name in the 19th century.

That is because the S&W Scofield came out in a .45 caliber, but it was a shorter cartridge than what Colt used (made it real fun getting the right ammo to the cavalry out west)

So .45LC distinguished the Colt cartridge from the shorter one used in S&W

Years later they came out with the .45 Automatic Colt Pistol cartridge, .45ACP
Bone Charcoal is offline  
Old June 6, 2015, 08:07 AM   #28
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Posts: 43
dirty cases

I shot 5.2 grains of TRAIL BOSS and my cases were all sooty and the cylinder also. it was from a reduced load. I increased it and it stopped.
toot44 is offline  
Old June 6, 2015, 05:12 PM   #29
Senior Member
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 12,137
.45 Long Colt was the correct name in the 19th century
Umm no. It is and always has been .45 Colt. You won't find a .45 Colt cartridge from then or now stamped .45 Long Colt. You are correct in the reasoning behind the popular renaming of the cartridge but correct terminology is .45 Colt. For there to have been a .45 LC Colt would have had to make a .45 Short Colt or at least two different lengths of cases which they never did until the .45 ACP.
Hawg is offline  
Old June 7, 2015, 01:49 AM   #30
Driftwood Johnson
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2014
Location: Land of the Pilgrims
Posts: 572

Some cartridges in my collection.

First, a whole slew of 45 Colts of various ages. Modern round on the left. Yes, all the old rounds, except the one on the far right had tiny rims, not suitable for a rifle extractor. The round all the way on the right was for the Model 1909 Colt and had a large rim for the extractor of the revolver.

Frankford Arsenal Benet primed 45 Colts. No they are not rim fire, they are internally primed. The dents near the bottom hold the internal priming in place. These are copper cased, folded rim rounds and a rifle extractor would have ripped right through them.

It ain't the 'extractor groove' that makes a round suitable for a rifle. Notice the 44-40 and 38-40 at the right in this photo. Guess what? No 'extractor groove'. The 44-40 and 38-40 were designed specifically as rifle rounds, and had larger rims for the rifle extractor to get a grip on. No 'extractor groove' was necessary. The 44 Mag and 44 Special on the left have grooves that are artifacts of the machining processes used to make the brass. They are not really 'extractor grooves', although they will help with extraction in a rifle. No extractor groove on the 44 Russian in the middle, but it is a revolver round anyway.

P.S. The cylinders of the old Colts were the same diameter as the cylinders of a modern Colt. Modern 45 Colt ammo has a rim diameter of .512, plenty for a rifle extractor to grab. The rims on most of those old 45s in my photo are running around .505, not enough for an extractor to grab. And modern 45 Colt ammo will chamber just fine in a 1st Gen Colt. The old rounds had tiny rims because there was no need for a large rim. The Single Action Army (the gun the round was designed for) had an ejector rod that poked the empties out from the inside. No need for a large rim for an extractor, it just was not even considered. All the rim had to do was prevent the round from being shoved forward by the firing pin, you don't need much rim for that.

Regarding the business about 45 Long Colt, when the Schofield round was developed in 1875 it's military designation was Revolver Ball Cartridge, Caliber .45 M1875. It was not refered to as the 'Schofield' cartridge until years later. There may well have been some 45s labeled 45 Long Colt, but I have never seen any. You can see the military designation of the 45 Colt right on my antique box of ammo. According to Kuhnhausen, the 45 Colt 'was not referred to as the 45 Long Colt until some time after the short M1896 ordinance and commercial cartridges were introduced.' The M1896 round had a OAL of 1.42, whereas the earlier M1875 round had an OAL of 1.438.

Regarding mixups of the wrong cartridges showing up for the wrong revolvers, modern gunwriters like to speculate about that, but there are no documented cases of it happening. We can talk about why S&W developed the shorter round another time.

Today, the name 45 Long Colt seems to be pretty much of a modern phenomenon, started by clerks in gun shops. You walk up to the counter and ask for a box of 45 Colt, the clerk says 'You mean 45 Long Colt? He just wants to make sure you don't want a box of 45 ACP. I have heard this exchange many times. He has probably never heard of the 45 Schofield round.

Finally, regarding soot on the case of a 45 in a rifle, with low powered loads you are going to get soot on the outside of the case. Period. You do not develop enough pressure with a low powered load to fully expand the case to seal the chamber, so you get blow by. Increase pressure and the soot will go away. But frankly, a little bit of soot on the case means nothing. It certainly is not going to affect the performance of the rifle. I have been seeing soot on 45s for many years now in CAS. If you want clean shiny brass, up the pressure. If you want light loads, don't worry about a little bit of soot.

Last edited by Driftwood Johnson; June 7, 2015 at 02:25 AM.
Driftwood Johnson is offline  
Old June 8, 2015, 08:42 AM   #31
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2008
Location: Somewhere on the Southern shore of Lake Travis, TX
Posts: 2,214
I am thinking that the straight walled case might always be a bit dirtier than my necked cases like the 44-40, which I have no problems with at the light end of the loading spectrum but I would like to see if I can get the sooting problem down to a minimum.
That's mostly because .44-40 brass is nearly tin foil thin compared to .45 Colt brass. Perfect for sealing at black powder pressures, but easy to dent or crush. The .22 Hornet is another such case.
Hanlon's Razor
"Do not invoke conspiracy as explanation when ignorance and incompetence will suffice, as conspiracy implies intelligence and organization."
B.L.E. is offline  
Old June 8, 2015, 09:18 PM   #32
Driftwood Johnson
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2014
Location: Land of the Pilgrims
Posts: 572

Yup, contrary to popular opinion, the bottleneck shape has nothing to do with 44-40 or 38-40 preventing soot from blowing by in the chamber of a rifle. 44-40 and 38-40 brass tends to run around .007 thick at the case mouth, 45 Colt tends to run around .012 thick and the case mouth. The thinness of the brass is what allows it to seal well at relatively low pressure. Hot gas has no problem going around corners.
Driftwood Johnson is offline  

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2015 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07658 seconds with 9 queries