The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Revolver Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 9, 2012, 01:41 PM   #51
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,327
"That is partially correct. They used the same caliber bullets."

Bart, actually, that is completely correct.

The Japanese adopted THREE separate 7.7mm service cartridges.

One was rimless, and used in certain machine guns and the Type 99 rifle.

Another was semi-rimmed. Not 100% sure what it was used it.

And then there was the 7.7 Japanese rimmed, essentially a carbon copy of the .303 British in all of its rimmed glory.

It was used in the Japanese copies and variations of the Lewis and Vickers machine guns.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old August 9, 2012, 03:20 PM   #52
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
You are correct, Mr. Bart Noir. The Browning Hi-Power was made in that caliber as well as the Sig P-210 in Switzerland. The .30 Luger was the Swiss service cartridge. According to Wikipedia, other handguns were also chambered for it, more so than I realized, but I recall seeing advertisements for the Ruger P-something that came with two barrels, one in .30 Luger, the other 9mm.

I was also aware the Japanese used more than one cartridge in 7.7mm, the different designations of which I did not look up. That's why I said "a certain Japanese." I knew about the Lewis gun copy, didn't know about the Vickers. The semi-rimmed version may have been used in their copy of the Hotchkiss but I don't have any reference material at hand.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old August 9, 2012, 04:33 PM   #53
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,327
The Japanese Navy's Type 97 E class machine gun was a direct copy of the Vickers ACMG Mk. II.

The Japanese Army had the Type 89, which was also a copy of the E class Vickers.

Both of the above were used as fixed armament on aircraft.

The Japanese Army also had a flexible mount machine gun called the Type 89, which I believe fired the rimmed version. I don't know if this was a copy of the Lewis or not, but I don't think that it was.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

Last edited by Mike Irwin; August 9, 2012 at 04:39 PM.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old August 13, 2012, 07:48 PM   #54
Bart Noir
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 5, 2000
Location: Puget Sound, USA
Posts: 1,667
I simply do not mind being corrected by you guys. That's how I learn.

And what a logistics nightmare the Japanese had in WW2 . We Americans had a few different versions of the .30-06 cartridge, IIRC, but at least any .30-06 could be fired in any .30-06 weapon.

I believe that a year or so back I saw a few boxes of .30-06 at a gunshow, made in Great Britain during the war, marked as being for aircraft use only. Do you guys have an explanation of this? I know we sent many aircraft to GB with machine guns mounted, so those would have been .30-06 not .303 (until they all were .50 BMG), but why the instructions about aircraft use?

Bart Noir
__________________
“There’s a rattle in my glove box,
A Federal twelve-gauge slug.” – Adam Carroll in song Porter Wagoner
Bart Noir is offline  
Old August 13, 2012, 07:53 PM   #55
Hawg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 11,868
Quote:
We Americans had a few different versions of the .30-06 cartridge, IIRC, but at least any .30-06 could be fired in any .30-06 weapon.
I might be wrong but I think the 30-06 machine gun ammo was too hot for the Garand.
Hawg is offline  
Old August 13, 2012, 08:41 PM   #56
Bob Wright
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 2012
Location: Memphis, Tennessee
Posts: 1,945
Quote:
I might be wrong but I think the 30-06 machine gun ammo was too hot for the Garand.
I beg to differ. I have de-linked .30 cal. AP M2 cartridges and loaded it into M1 clips.

Aircraft issued ammunition was API, Armor Piercing Incendiary. This was not issued to infantry units, but was issue to AAA units.

Incidentally linked ammunition was all the same when issued, that is, the whole belt was API. If the gunner desired, he inserted the tracers as desired.

During my brief service career, .30 caliber ammunition was issued in three ways, all came in those nice olive drab steel boxes we cherished; (1) in 8 round clips (2) 250 rounds, linked (3) loose, boxed in 20 round boxes, buff colored cardboard.

.45 Ammunition was issued in 50 round boxes, with four half moon clips in each box.

.30 Carbine ammunition was issued either in fifteen round stripper clips or twenty round boxes, loose.

We had linking/de-linking machines, though I never used one. They looked like a three-hole paper punch, a little. Supposedly one loaded cartridges into the grooves and links into corresponding slots, then pushed then handle down and one suddenly had a very short belt of ammunition.

Bob Wright

Last edited by Bob Wright; August 13, 2012 at 08:49 PM.
Bob Wright is offline  
Old August 14, 2012, 06:25 AM   #57
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
This is really getting off the topic but here goes anyway. The Browning .30-06 water cooled machine guns were still in use in basic training when I was going through in 1965. That might explain why there isn't much US made stuff still around.

Here's something else I've mentioned before, also. In theory, a British tank in WWII could have required as many as four different small arms ammo. There would have been .38/200 for the crew's revolvers, 9mm for the submachine gun they probably had (if it wasn't a Thompson, which was .45 ACP), 8mm for the Besa, and .303 for the Bren that was probably mounted on the roof. At least they didn't have to carry it around.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old August 14, 2012, 06:46 AM   #58
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,327
"I might be wrong but I think the 30-06 machine gun ammo was too hot for the Garand."

Sorry, Hawg, but you're wrong, but with a POSSIBLE grain of truth...

It's a somewhat complex story, and maybe true (it is disputed by some) or may be false.

Anyway...

In World War I, the standard .30-06 loading used a 150-gr. flat base bullet for both rifle and machine gun use, the Ball M1906 round.

One of the outcomes of the war-time experience was that the ammo simply didn't have enough range for long-distance harassing fire with machine guns.

There was also the issue of the jacket material (cupronickel) fouling barrels.

In the early 1920s a new bullet, a 172-gr. boattail, was adopted as the .30-06 Ball M1. It gave greatly increase range (nearly double!), but it also made just about every military firing range obsolete. Supposedly one of the first times the ammo was used for training a homeowner who previously had been well out of range had his house severely damaged by bullets overshooting the range.

Here's where the story is disputed...

At the same time the United States was developing the Garand rifle. Supposedly, once the order came down to stick wtih the .30-06 (as opposed to the .276 Pedersen), Garand had a lot of trouble adapting the M1 to the heavy bullet load, while it worked fine with the ligher bullet load (those WW I era rounds were still being used for training as stocks of the Ball M1 were built up).

In 1938 or 1939, the decision was made to switch back to what was essentially the Ball M1906 round, but with a guilding metal jacket.

This solved any issues there may have been with the Garand, but the military had to figure out what to do with nearly 2 billion rounds of Ball M1.

So, the decision was mark it for use in automatic weapons only.

It was issued primarily for use by infantry but also in aircraft machine guns where the better ballistics and heavier weight were a distinct advantage.

Once those stocks ran ough, though, they were replaced with Ball M2. By then, though, it really didn't matter because combat ranges were nothing like they had been in WWI, and aircraft had largely moved to the .50 BMG round.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old August 14, 2012, 09:24 AM   #59
Hawg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 11,868
Thanks for the clarification Mike.
Hawg is offline  
Old August 14, 2012, 10:37 PM   #60
Newton24b
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2009
Posts: 974
as to the original posting, why was the 44 caliber cartridges of the 1800s not used by the federal government.

well,


1. these 44 caliber cartridges did not meet the basic requirements of the government contract for the solid frame revolver.
-not the same bullet diameter, or powder charge as used by at minimum the colt 1860.

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..

3. ease of manufacturing
Newton24b is offline  
Old August 15, 2012, 05:05 AM   #61
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,327
But the .44 Colt and American cartridges are both straight walled.

And either cartridge could have been adapted to a solid frame revolver.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old August 15, 2012, 09:29 AM   #62
Hawg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 11,868
Quote:
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.
Hawg is offline  
Old August 15, 2012, 11:49 PM   #63
Newton24b
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2009
Posts: 974
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.
Newton24b is offline  
Old August 16, 2012, 10:07 PM   #64
Ideal Tool
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 6, 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,080
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.
Ideal Tool is offline  
Old August 19, 2012, 09:17 PM   #65
Bob Wright
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 2012
Location: Memphis, Tennessee
Posts: 1,945
Quote:
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
Bob Wright is offline  
Old August 20, 2012, 06:36 AM   #66
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,327
Bob's absolutely correct.

About halfway down this page http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...ch&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
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old October 10, 2012, 11:04 PM   #67
Mindful
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2012
Posts: 14
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
Mindful is offline  
Old October 11, 2012, 09:10 AM   #68
Bob Wright
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 2012
Location: Memphis, Tennessee
Posts: 1,945
Mindful wrote:
Quote:
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
Bob Wright is offline  
Old October 11, 2012, 10:12 AM   #69
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,327
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.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old October 11, 2012, 11:42 AM   #70
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
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.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old October 11, 2012, 12:27 PM   #71
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,327
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.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old October 11, 2012, 12:41 PM   #72
gak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2005
Location: Aridzona
Posts: 2,767
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.
gak is offline  
Old October 11, 2012, 02:28 PM   #73
Rams15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 2012
Posts: 1
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.
Rams15 is offline  
Reply

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 01:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12259 seconds with 7 queries