|
|
Post by naphtali on Oct 14, 2009 21:10:29 GMT -5
In the early 1870s, the War Department tested bore sizes, cartridges, etc. They concluded testing by selecting 45-70 (.458 inch) for ling arms and 45 Colt (.454-inch) for handguns. Why were different bore sizes chosen for military weapons? On first consideration, selecting one common bore size would appear to lower cost of [barrel] manufacture for both as well as lowering cost of bullet manufacture. So what's the skinny here? I'm confident there is a good rationale for the selection, but I surely don't see it.
|
|
carl
.327 Meteor
Posts: 546 
|
Post by carl on Oct 15, 2009 6:03:44 GMT -5
Perhaps the proposed projectile weight and rate of twist? Good question..  Carl |
|
|
|
Post by whitworth on Oct 15, 2009 7:59:43 GMT -5
To frustrate reloaders...... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by taffin on Oct 15, 2009 8:06:48 GMT -5
In the early 1870s, the War Department tested bore sizes, cartridges, etc. They concluded testing by selecting 45-70 (.458 inch) for ling arms and 45 Colt (.454-inch) for handguns. Why were different bore sizes chosen for military weapons? On first consideration, selecting one common bore size would appear to lower cost of [barrel] manufacture for both as well as lowering cost of bullet manufacture. So what's the skinny here? I'm confident there is a good rationale for the selection, but I surely don't see it. SOME THOUGHTS: 1) THE .45-70 CARTRIDGE WAS IN EXISTENCE SEVERAL YEARS BEFORE THE .45 COLT. 2) TWO DIFFERENT MANUFACTURERS SO COMMON BORE SIZE WOULD NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IN COST. 3) COLT'S 1873 STARTED AS A CONVERSION OF THE 1860 ARMY WHICH USED .451"-.454" ROUND BALLS. 4) SPECS FOR THE .45 COLT CALLED FOR A .452" GROOVE DIAMETER. 5) .454 BULLETS OFTEN WORK BEST IN COLTS BECAUSE OF THE CHAMBER THROATS. |
|
|
|
Post by naphtali on Oct 15, 2009 11:50:18 GMT -5
In the early 1870s, the War Department tested bore sizes, cartridges, etc. They concluded testing by selecting 45-70 (.458 inch) for ling arms and 45 Colt (.454-inch) for handguns. Why were different bore sizes chosen for military weapons? On first consideration, selecting one common bore size would appear to lower cost of [barrel] manufacture for both as well as lowering cost of bullet manufacture. So what's the skinny here? I'm confident there is a good rationale for the selection, but I surely don't see it. SOME THOUGHTS: 1) THE .45-70 CARTRIDGE WAS IN EXISTENCE SEVERAL YEARS BEFORE THE .45 COLT. 2) TWO DIFFERENT MANUFACTURERS SO COMMON BORE SIZE WOULD NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IN COST. 3) COLT'S 1873 STARTED AS A CONVERSION OF THE 1860 ARMY WHICH USED .451"-.454" ROUND BALLS.4) SPECS FOR THE .45 COLT CALLED FOR A .452" GROOVE DIAMETER. 5) .454 BULLETS OFTEN WORK BEST IN COLTS BECAUSE OF THE CHAMBER THROATS. Accepting that 45 Colt's bore size derived from an evolution from 44 percussion revolvers, how/why did the War Department decide a rifle bore size a few thousandths of an inch larger was a significant enough improvement in ballistic performance to warrant its manufacture rather than piggybacking on tooling created for the existing bore size, regardless of its location. I suspect production bullets for 45-70 and 45 Colt were swaged. So there would be some overlap in bullets' production tooling -- that is, there could have been. Is this an instance of bureaucrats justifying their salaries? |
|
|
|
Post by taffin on Oct 15, 2009 12:28:01 GMT -5
THE BORE OF THE .45-70 WAS DETERMINED BY WHOMEVER CAME UP WITH IT FOR THE GATLING. THEIR WAS NO EXSTING TOOLING THE WAR DEPT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH BORE SIZE OF THE 1873 COLT. THEY JUST ASKED FOR A .45 INSTEAD OF THE .44 COLT WHICH THEY FELT WAS NOT POWERFUL ENOUGH AND ALSO A "TOP STRAP REVOLVER". COLT DECIDED THE BORE SIZE.
|
|
|
|
Post by bfrshooter on Oct 15, 2009 14:57:26 GMT -5
Many of the first revolvers had boolits (heeled) that fit the brass like a .22 boolit where the booilt is the same diameter as the brass. It just carried over. Now if you measure the bore of a 45-70 it is .450" as it should be, so it is an actual .45. But now you need to add groove depth so the boolit is larger.
It has been nothing but confusion forever. Some went by groove to groove, some went by bore size, some changed the number so it didn't match someone else's caliber.
Look at the .460 Weatherby, the .480 Ruger, the .38 Special, .44 mag and on and on.
It would be nice if all calibers were marked by bore size but it would also just add to the confusion because the caliber name would be different anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by taffin on Oct 15, 2009 16:14:14 GMT -5
BOOLITS?? BOOLITS?? BOOLITS???@*(^!^$%*!()!$^DO YOU MEAN B-U-L-L-E-T-S??? DON'T TELL ME "BOOLITS" ARE CAST BULLETS EITHER. CAST BULLETS ARE CAST BULLETS. BOOLITS????AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH.
|
|
|
|
Post by TEXASFIVEGUN on Oct 15, 2009 16:32:09 GMT -5
Thank's taffin I want to say the same thing every dang time I see "boolits".
|
|
|
|
Post by taffin on Oct 15, 2009 16:48:50 GMT -5
Thank's taffin I want to say the same thing every dang time I see "boolits". THANK YOU! IT SETS ME OFF WORSE THAN .45 LONG COLT, WHEELGUNS, AND CLIPS INSTEAD OF MAGAZINES. |
|
|
|
Post by Boge Quinn on Oct 15, 2009 16:50:26 GMT -5
THANK YOU! IT SETS ME OFF WORSE THAN .45 LONG COLT, WHEELGUNS, AND CLIPS INSTEAD OF MAGAZINES. Three of my pet peeves as well, sir! And when I see those terms in print - GGRRRR! |
|
|
|
Post by nonpcnrarn on Oct 15, 2009 23:09:21 GMT -5
I have 2 kinds of gun magazines. Some contain cartridges and some contain Taffin articles! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by kings6 on Oct 16, 2009 0:22:29 GMT -5
Now you gentlemen are sounding like Carl when people start taling about old model Vaqueros and new model Vaqueros  |
|
carl
.327 Meteor
Posts: 546
|
Post by carl on Oct 16, 2009 5:53:15 GMT -5
I'm with JT. Let's keep our terminology in order. As far as the Vaquero thing goes, I just call 'em what Ruger rollmarks on them. How simple is that? Carl |
|
|
|
Post by Boge Quinn on Oct 16, 2009 8:02:11 GMT -5
I'm with you, Carl! That one gets me too.
|
|
