Big Matt
Member
I may be mistaken but I thought I read somewhere on these boards that the .45ACP was created by Browning by scaling up .32ACP.
Why 45 ACP Caliber?
- Thread starter Noveldoc
- Start date
- Status
unspellable
Member
The 45 Rimmed is a different horse. The rim is way too thick to go in any other 45, never mind the diameter. It's strictly for revolvers chambered for the 45 ACP.
The original Schofield had a wide rim for the S&W extractor star. It was replaced in the military inventory by the 45 Government with a narrow rim. I strongly suspect MODERN brass head stamped as 45 Schofield has a narrower rim.
The Schofield was NOT the 45 Short Colt, the 45 Government was known as the 45 Short Colt. The two should NOT be confused, there is a distinct difference in rim diameter. The 45 Government was used in the 45 S&W Schofield at a known risk of getting the rim under the extractor.
Both cartridges are still around today. The 45 Short Colt is, or at last recently enough that I see them at gun shows, loaded by Fiocchi. The 45 Schofield has enjoyed a revival of late and I often see them, although I’m suspicious of the rim diameter.
The 45 Revolver, also known as the 1909 this or that, does not allow loading every other chamber in my Colt SAA clone. The rim fouls the ratchet and will not allow the cartridge to go all the way into the chamber. Can’t chamber even one.
I had not heard of the Schofield being used in the Philippines, I have heard of the SAA being used there. The dirty little secret is that the various 45s and the 30-40 Krag didn’t stop the Moros either. Hard ball, or non-expanding loads just don’t make good stoppers.
I'm well aware that Wikipedia sometimes has to be taken with a grain of salt. But in this case, NONE of my information comes from Wikipedia. It does come from multiple sources that stand up to some checking out. I’ve found over the years that there is a good deal of misinformation in gun rags, in gun shop discussions, and the like as well. Just because something is in print doesn’t make it so. And just because a lot of people say it, doesn’t make it so either.
The original Schofield had a wide rim for the S&W extractor star. It was replaced in the military inventory by the 45 Government with a narrow rim. I strongly suspect MODERN brass head stamped as 45 Schofield has a narrower rim.
The Schofield was NOT the 45 Short Colt, the 45 Government was known as the 45 Short Colt. The two should NOT be confused, there is a distinct difference in rim diameter. The 45 Government was used in the 45 S&W Schofield at a known risk of getting the rim under the extractor.
Both cartridges are still around today. The 45 Short Colt is, or at last recently enough that I see them at gun shows, loaded by Fiocchi. The 45 Schofield has enjoyed a revival of late and I often see them, although I’m suspicious of the rim diameter.
The 45 Revolver, also known as the 1909 this or that, does not allow loading every other chamber in my Colt SAA clone. The rim fouls the ratchet and will not allow the cartridge to go all the way into the chamber. Can’t chamber even one.
I had not heard of the Schofield being used in the Philippines, I have heard of the SAA being used there. The dirty little secret is that the various 45s and the 30-40 Krag didn’t stop the Moros either. Hard ball, or non-expanding loads just don’t make good stoppers.
I'm well aware that Wikipedia sometimes has to be taken with a grain of salt. But in this case, NONE of my information comes from Wikipedia. It does come from multiple sources that stand up to some checking out. I’ve found over the years that there is a good deal of misinformation in gun rags, in gun shop discussions, and the like as well. Just because something is in print doesn’t make it so. And just because a lot of people say it, doesn’t make it so either.
Here's something on the subject by Mike Venturino:
Excerpt:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_8_53/ai_n19313637/
Mike refers to the issue cartridge as ".45 S&W" and says that while the rim is larger than that of the original Colt cartridge, it will work in the SAA. Nothing yet about a earlier round with a rim too wide for the SAA. Doesn't mean there never was one, and to add to the confusion, here's someting from Sixguns by Keith:
In The Book of Pistols and Revolvers, W.H.B. Smith describes the .45 S&W Center Fire cartridge as having been originally developed for the S&W Model 1875 [Schofield], having been adapted to the Colt, and having been "often listed" [during the time it was in production] as the ".45 Colt Government." (Italics mine.) Did that mean that the first design had a rim too large for the Colt, and that the design had been changed? Could well be. He didn't say.
Excerpt:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_8_53/ai_n19313637/
Mike refers to the issue cartridge as ".45 S&W" and says that while the rim is larger than that of the original Colt cartridge, it will work in the SAA. Nothing yet about a earlier round with a rim too wide for the SAA. Doesn't mean there never was one, and to add to the confusion, here's someting from Sixguns by Keith:
Keith goes on to say that the latter were not accurate in the Colt due to the long bullet jump, and that he thought the latter were made so they would function in the top-break S&W. He said he never tried them, and I'm not sure he was necessarily talking about two different rounds.
In The Book of Pistols and Revolvers, W.H.B. Smith describes the .45 S&W Center Fire cartridge as having been originally developed for the S&W Model 1875 [Schofield], having been adapted to the Colt, and having been "often listed" [during the time it was in production] as the ".45 Colt Government." (Italics mine.) Did that mean that the first design had a rim too large for the Colt, and that the design had been changed? Could well be. He didn't say.
More...
I looked in The Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson by Jim Supica and Richard Nahas.
According to that source and to W. H. B. Smith, the Army had tested the S&W Americans and Russians. According to Supica and Nahas, Col. George Schofield had worked with S&W on a modification to the American, primarily involving the mounting of the latch. The Army requested that the gun be offered in .45 Colt. S&W declined, saying that the .45 Colt rim would not extract positively in the S&W design "and no doubt considering that the frame of the Model 3 would have to be lengthened." Supica and Nahas go on to say that S&W "offered to redesign the military cartridge to a .45 caliber round that would function in both types of revolvers."
So, it seems very clear that the Schofield cartridge, variously known as the .45 Colt Government and as the .45 S&W, certainly had a larger rim than the original .45 Colt cartridge.
What I haven't yet been able to find is any historical reference to a Schofield round with a rim still larger that would not work in the Colt revolver. I have not given up but I'm running out of sources.
I looked in The Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson by Jim Supica and Richard Nahas.
According to that source and to W. H. B. Smith, the Army had tested the S&W Americans and Russians. According to Supica and Nahas, Col. George Schofield had worked with S&W on a modification to the American, primarily involving the mounting of the latch. The Army requested that the gun be offered in .45 Colt. S&W declined, saying that the .45 Colt rim would not extract positively in the S&W design "and no doubt considering that the frame of the Model 3 would have to be lengthened." Supica and Nahas go on to say that S&W "offered to redesign the military cartridge to a .45 caliber round that would function in both types of revolvers."
So, it seems very clear that the Schofield cartridge, variously known as the .45 Colt Government and as the .45 S&W, certainly had a larger rim than the original .45 Colt cartridge.
What I haven't yet been able to find is any historical reference to a Schofield round with a rim still larger that would not work in the Colt revolver. I have not given up but I'm running out of sources.
What a mess!
Unlce Sam should simply have made it worth Smith and Wesson's while, for them to lengthen the darned Frame and Cylinders, so their then 'improved' Schofield would accept normal .45 Colt Cartridges.
This would have probably done very wel in U.S. Civillian and Foreign Sales also, and everyone then and since would have been happy.
Eeeeeeesh...
Unlce Sam should simply have made it worth Smith and Wesson's while, for them to lengthen the darned Frame and Cylinders, so their then 'improved' Schofield would accept normal .45 Colt Cartridges.
This would have probably done very wel in U.S. Civillian and Foreign Sales also, and everyone then and since would have been happy.
Eeeeeeesh...
From One More Source
This thread and a store coupon moved me to get the latest edition of Cartridges of the World; my old one was long gone.
On the Schofield:
First, to summarize what I've found in the literature so far:
Now to muddy the waters a little:
Cartridges of the World (12th edition) by Frank C. Barnes and Layne Simpson lists two cartridges for the Schofield.
So, there's contradiction within the literature.
On the Model 1909:
Culver said that a new round with a wider rim was developed for the Model 1909 (military version of the New Service) and goes on to say
In another thread, the Old Fuff, who is researching a possible book on the Model 1909, says about the same thing. I cannot wait for the book.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5990558&postcount=28
Decades ago I saw a picture of a .45 cylinder with alternate rounds having to be loaded due to wide rims. I remembered it as having to do with .45 Auto Rim cartridges in a properly chambered SAA Colt cylinder, but it may have been the 1909 cartridge. I no longer have the book.
This thread and a store coupon moved me to get the latest edition of Cartridges of the World; my old one was long gone.
On the Schofield:
First, to summarize what I've found in the literature so far:
In oldammo.com (author unknown), it is said that the .45 S&W was used in both the Schofield and the Colt and had head stamps of .45 S&W, .45 Colt, and .45 Colt Government. No mention of any rim differences that I noted. However, the rims in some of the photos do look rather narrow to me.
In The Arcane World of Cartridge Designations, Dick Culver says the Government adopted the .45 S&W and called it the .45 Government for use in both revolvers.
Mike Venturino says the Schofield cartridge was called the .45 S&W and would work fine in a Colt SAA.
Links to all of the above are in previous posts in this thread.
W. H. B. Smith said that the .45 S&W Center Fire was developed for the Schofield, "adapted to the Colt" (?), and often listed as the .45 Colt Government.
In The Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson by Jim Supica and Richard Nahas, the statement is made that S&W offered to redesign the Government round to yield a round that would work in both revolvers.
In The Arcane World of Cartridge Designations, Dick Culver says the Government adopted the .45 S&W and called it the .45 Government for use in both revolvers.
Mike Venturino says the Schofield cartridge was called the .45 S&W and would work fine in a Colt SAA.
Links to all of the above are in previous posts in this thread.
W. H. B. Smith said that the .45 S&W Center Fire was developed for the Schofield, "adapted to the Colt" (?), and often listed as the .45 Colt Government.
In The Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson by Jim Supica and Richard Nahas, the statement is made that S&W offered to redesign the Government round to yield a round that would work in both revolvers.
Now to muddy the waters a little:
Cartridges of the World (12th edition) by Frank C. Barnes and Layne Simpson lists two cartridges for the Schofield.
The .45 Smith and Wesson, also called the .45 S&W Schofield, is said to have been introduced in 1875 for the Schofield revolver, and to have been shorter than the .45 Colt (duh!) and to have had a rim that was "enlarged slightly".
In the listing for the .45 Colt/.45 Colt Government, it is said that "it seems likely" that some .45 S&W rounds would not function well in some Colt SAA revolvers and that this "bastardized" round, which was evidently produced between the late 1870s and the 1930s, had the same rim as the original Colt round. It is described as being marked as .45 Colt Government in Rem-UMC production and as having given some risk of malfunction in the Schofield.
In the listing for the .45 Colt/.45 Colt Government, it is said that "it seems likely" that some .45 S&W rounds would not function well in some Colt SAA revolvers and that this "bastardized" round, which was evidently produced between the late 1870s and the 1930s, had the same rim as the original Colt round. It is described as being marked as .45 Colt Government in Rem-UMC production and as having given some risk of malfunction in the Schofield.
So, there's contradiction within the literature.
On the Model 1909:
Culver said that a new round with a wider rim was developed for the Model 1909 (military version of the New Service) and goes on to say
In another thread, the Old Fuff, who is researching a possible book on the Model 1909, says about the same thing. I cannot wait for the book.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5990558&postcount=28
Decades ago I saw a picture of a .45 cylinder with alternate rounds having to be loaded due to wide rims. I remembered it as having to do with .45 Auto Rim cartridges in a properly chambered SAA Colt cylinder, but it may have been the 1909 cartridge. I no longer have the book.
DougDubya
Member
Well, about 150 years later, both Beretta and Smith and Wesson rectified the lack of a break-top .45 Colt.
There were many years that USAF flying uniforms were nylon -- all through the 1950s and early 1960s, as a matter of fact. Flight suits and jackets both.
Aramid/Nomex was only created in the early 60s, and it wasn't until the mid 60s that it started making its way into issued military flying clothing.
Just One Shot
Member
Because I can't afford a .50
:banghead:
android
Member
Yes, my dad was a pilot in the USAF during the Viet Nam era and after. All nomex gear, but they did not get leather jackets at that time. Just another piece of nomex gear called a "flight jacket" that was green outside and orange inside similar to the nylon copies you see at dept stores, but not flammable. Lots of pockets too. According to him, not really substantial enough to keep you warm while on alert in Minot, ND.
Kernel
Member
^^^^
I stand corrected. Should of remembered that Arimid (trade name Nomex) wasn’t even invented until 1961 or so. I had just read, a few years ago, in I believe in Invention & Technology magazine, about the work of DuPont chemist Stephanie Kwolek, who did much of the early research.
Still, it’s hard to believe the Air Force actually issued nylon fight gear in the ‘50’s & ‘60’s, given the accident rate of some of those early jets, let alone, the dangers of flying over NVN. As if the job wasn’t dangerous enough.
I stand corrected. Should of remembered that Arimid (trade name Nomex) wasn’t even invented until 1961 or so. I had just read, a few years ago, in I believe in Invention & Technology magazine, about the work of DuPont chemist Stephanie Kwolek, who did much of the early research.
Still, it’s hard to believe the Air Force actually issued nylon fight gear in the ‘50’s & ‘60’s, given the accident rate of some of those early jets, let alone, the dangers of flying over NVN. As if the job wasn’t dangerous enough.
Alright did this on Halloween morning when I was a little bored. Took about 15 minutes, I didn't put a live primer or powder in it of course. I must say if someone wanted to make alot of these 30-06 or 308 45ACP cases it will be very time consuming.
Check out the 30-06 headstamp,
Check out the 30-06 headstamp,
Horses
Trying to stop drugged-up fanatics overtaxed the .38 service revolvers. However, I bet that that the rank and file had a lot of misgivings about anything less than a .45 pistol from day one for one reason:
Horse Killing.
Lots of horses in use back then. Big critters, step on you if you don't get out of the way. Ornery fellows with lances and sabres on their back, that sort of thing. Now, I ain't gonna claim that a .45acp with ball ammo will take down a horse in one shot, but by the time the slide locks back ol' Nelly is gonna be a bit leaky.
For that matter, the rifle cartridges of the day were maybe a bit of overkill for human beings, but for horse killing they worked pretty well. I imagine the old 220gr. roundnose FMJ in the .30 US/.30 Army/.30-40 Krag would've tunneled quite a ways into any draft animals caught out in the open.
Trying to stop drugged-up fanatics overtaxed the .38 service revolvers. However, I bet that that the rank and file had a lot of misgivings about anything less than a .45 pistol from day one for one reason:
Horse Killing.
Lots of horses in use back then. Big critters, step on you if you don't get out of the way. Ornery fellows with lances and sabres on their back, that sort of thing. Now, I ain't gonna claim that a .45acp with ball ammo will take down a horse in one shot, but by the time the slide locks back ol' Nelly is gonna be a bit leaky.
For that matter, the rifle cartridges of the day were maybe a bit of overkill for human beings, but for horse killing they worked pretty well. I imagine the old 220gr. roundnose FMJ in the .30 US/.30 Army/.30-40 Krag would've tunneled quite a ways into any draft animals caught out in the open.
mesinge2
Member
Is a Webley MARK VI converted to fire .45 ACP safe?
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=145323572
Wouldn't the pressure be too great?
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=145323572
Wouldn't the pressure be too great?
DougDubya
Member
And yet, the Moros were seemingly as immune to the .30-40 Krag as they were to the lowly .38 Smith and Wesson cartridges used.
knights_armorer
Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2009
- Messages
- 92
yes, there are actually gobs of cartridges that use the same rim diameter.
just a short list
22/250, 243 Win., 6mm Rem., 25/06, 250 Savage, 257 Roberts, 6.5 Carcano, 270 Win., 280 Rem., 7mm/08, 7mm BR, 7 x 57mm Mauser, 284 Win., 300 Savage, 308 Win. (7.62 NATO), 30/06 Springfield, 7.7 Jap., 8 x 57 Mauser, 8mm 06, 35 Rem., 35 Whelan, 45acp.
im sure there are many more. these are just the ones that i know fit a #2 lyman
just a short list
22/250, 243 Win., 6mm Rem., 25/06, 250 Savage, 257 Roberts, 6.5 Carcano, 270 Win., 280 Rem., 7mm/08, 7mm BR, 7 x 57mm Mauser, 284 Win., 300 Savage, 308 Win. (7.62 NATO), 30/06 Springfield, 7.7 Jap., 8 x 57 Mauser, 8mm 06, 35 Rem., 35 Whelan, 45acp.
im sure there are many more. these are just the ones that i know fit a #2 lyman
Deltaboy1984
Member
Why because Mr Browning said so!
NMGonzo
Member
.60 cal sounder even better for horses, yaks, elephants, wookies ...
That's what Patrick Sweeney says. The 1911 was originally a cavalry weapon.
Someone earlier got it right with the history. The Colt Paterson .36 was an amazing weapon, but the Texas Rangers wanted something with more power. That gave us the .44 Walker Colt (bore diameter was .45, as I understand it).
That led to the Dragoon series, the Colt 1860 Army and its Remington counterpart, the first .44 Colt cartridge guns, and the Single Action Army and Schofield in .45.
Dissatisfaction with the later .38 service revolver led to the introduction of the Colt Model 1909 revolver in .45, but by then the semiautomatic was on its way. The Army wanted a .45, whether it was to be used in the Savage, Colt, or Luger, and that's what Colt gave them with John Browning's help.
Sweeney suggests that had the .38 Super been available at the time of the trials things might have been different. The Army had tried the .38 Automatic and were not satisfied with the cartridge.
Interestingly, most of the European countries initially used large-bore revolvers (.44 Russian, eleven-point something, .450 and .455 British) in the latter part of the nineteenth century, but most of them went to something smaller by about the end of the century. Britain stayed with the large bore longer than most.
There were exceptions. Greece and Norway adopted the 1911 in .45, staying with it perhaps until the German occupations.
Sure, sure. I remember that.
See, the problem was the Moros would always charge *facing* the US forces. Human beings are (generally) fairly thin in that dimension, and the bullet would punch through both sides without a lot of tissue damage.
Now, if they'd have sidled up towards the Americans sorta crab-wise, then the long, heavy bullet would have had more Moro to penetrate and a better chance of tranferring energy to the recipient.
The .38 Colt bullets simply didn't punch through, period. Some accounts I've read claim they were stopped by boiled *leather* armor.
Huh. Imagine the marketing possibilites. All-natural, "green" body armor, hand crafted by Filipino artisans. There may be a market for this among the trend setters, so long as they're vegan.
See, the problem was the Moros would always charge *facing* the US forces. Human beings are (generally) fairly thin in that dimension, and the bullet would punch through both sides without a lot of tissue damage.
Now, if they'd have sidled up towards the Americans sorta crab-wise, then the long, heavy bullet would have had more Moro to penetrate and a better chance of tranferring energy to the recipient.
The .38 Colt bullets simply didn't punch through, period. Some accounts I've read claim they were stopped by boiled *leather* armor.
Huh. Imagine the marketing possibilites. All-natural, "green" body armor, hand crafted by Filipino artisans. There may be a market for this among the trend setters, so long as they're vegan.
No historical significance what so ever.
I was at the range the other day re-using someone else's target and an onlooker asked how I could tell where I was hitting (there were plenty of 38.ish cal holes). The answer was very simple and reflective of the "Why 45" debate. I said simply, "Mine are bigger". I don't remember who in this tread interjected with the afore mention quote but its about as succinct as one can get.
I do appreciate the historical knowledge you all are imparting. It is great to learn about the origins of anything, I'm a bit of a history buff my self just in different areas. Thank you all!
I was at the range the other day re-using someone else's target and an onlooker asked how I could tell where I was hitting (there were plenty of 38.ish cal holes). The answer was very simple and reflective of the "Why 45" debate. I said simply, "Mine are bigger". I don't remember who in this tread interjected with the afore mention quote but its about as succinct as one can get.
I do appreciate the historical knowledge you all are imparting. It is great to learn about the origins of anything, I'm a bit of a history buff my self just in different areas. Thank you all!
I'm gonna dust off a few bits of my memory here- done more than a bit of reading on this subject meself. But just to be safe, I'm gonna inject a disclaimer right here- I'm working from memory.
There were problems with the rim diameters in the single action army. This was during early production of the pistol. I believe the diameter of the original cylinders limited the size of the rim for the 45 Colt. That small diameter kept it from being chambered in Winchester rifles.
When the Army ordered the Schoefield pistols in 45 caliber, the cylinders were too short for the Colt round. So they made the 45 Schoefield. It had a larger rim for more positive extraction.
Now here comes the trouble- The rim diameter of some of the Schoefield rounds gave trouble while being loaded in some of the SAA pistols. It wasn't with all SAA pistols as some dimensional changes were made to later runs to accomodate a change in the rim size of the 45 Colt.
What I do remember is one article talking about how the Army created a bit of a logistical mess as they at first had the 45 Colt and Schoefield rounds in the inventory. Some soldiers armed with Schoefields were issued Colt rounds by mistake. The Army solved the problem by issuing the Schoefield ammunition to all. I don't recall if they resolved the rim diameter issue at this point or if it were simply a much smaller problem than the one with length. aIn the end, the Colt SAA became the issue handgun for the Army but they continued to issue the shorter round
There were problems with the rim diameters in the single action army. This was during early production of the pistol. I believe the diameter of the original cylinders limited the size of the rim for the 45 Colt. That small diameter kept it from being chambered in Winchester rifles.
When the Army ordered the Schoefield pistols in 45 caliber, the cylinders were too short for the Colt round. So they made the 45 Schoefield. It had a larger rim for more positive extraction.
Now here comes the trouble- The rim diameter of some of the Schoefield rounds gave trouble while being loaded in some of the SAA pistols. It wasn't with all SAA pistols as some dimensional changes were made to later runs to accomodate a change in the rim size of the 45 Colt.
What I do remember is one article talking about how the Army created a bit of a logistical mess as they at first had the 45 Colt and Schoefield rounds in the inventory. Some soldiers armed with Schoefields were issued Colt rounds by mistake. The Army solved the problem by issuing the Schoefield ammunition to all. I don't recall if they resolved the rim diameter issue at this point or if it were simply a much smaller problem than the one with length. aIn the end, the Colt SAA became the issue handgun for the Army but they continued to issue the shorter round
- Status
