|
|
Post by Encore64 on Feb 26, 2024 21:12:46 GMT -5
Elmer Keith disliked the 38 WCF … do I need more than that fact to settle this debate? (I own one regardless) He was old and grouchy too…. And a compensated gun writer with an agenda. Let's remember he didn't exactly praise the 45 Colt. The 44 Special had thicker cylinder walls and was a prime choice for +P Loads. Had the Blackhawk existed, the writings would probably been different. My favorite gun hero is Phil Sharpe. He despised the 25-20 WCF, yet it's my favorite. While I respect what some gentlemen have achieved, I still prefer to think for myself. |
|
sharps4590
.30 Stingray
I'm a Christian first, husband and father next then a patriotic, veteran, firearms aficionado.
Posts: 361
|
Post by sharps4590 on Feb 26, 2024 21:52:01 GMT -5
Not when he came to that conclusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by LeverGunner on Feb 27, 2024 0:16:12 GMT -5
Keith said that he preferred the 45 Colt if using factory loads, and 44 Special with (his) handloads.
|
|
|
|
Post by revolvercranker on Feb 27, 2024 2:00:44 GMT -5
Encore you should read Keith's book or study about him more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Encore64 on Feb 27, 2024 4:24:30 GMT -5
Keith said that he preferred the 45 Colt if using factory loads, and 44 Special with (his) handloads. Yes, I probably should have been clearer. Didn't praise the 45 Colt as being suitable for +P Loads. As I went on to say, it was due to the guns available during his experiments. The 44 Special had much thicker walls and was suitable for such. Also, as I've posted, if Keith would have had a Blackhawk available to work with, history might have painted a different story. As John Taffin has pointed out, by time the Blackhawk 45 Colt was introduced, the 44 Magnum was well established. No matter, Dick Casull ended up developing the 454 Casull and John Linebaugh gave us the 5-Shot 45 Colt. All's well that ends well... |
|
rWt
.375 Atomic
Posts: 1,568
|
Post by rWt on Feb 27, 2024 8:47:04 GMT -5
The 3 most important words in marketing, "New and Improved". I wonder if the developers thought that there would be a market for a lower octane round now that the country was more civilized.
My 38 WCF is a 100+ year-old Winchester 1892 SRC. It's a very mild recoiling package that you could shoot all day. I bought it from a dealer in Maine where it had been since it was made. The dealer said that the round was a fairly popular deer cartridge in Maine due to the number of old lever action rifles still in use.
|
|
|
|
Post by bushog on Feb 27, 2024 9:03:38 GMT -5
Encore you should read Keith's book or study about him more. Yeah…… |
|
|
|
Post by Encore64 on Feb 27, 2024 9:19:46 GMT -5
Encore you should read Keith's book or study about him more. Yeah…… Pretty funny really. When I posted a picture of a page from one of Keith's Books where he referred to the 45 Colt as the "Long Colt," everybody flipped out. Guess it depends on which way the winds blowing? |
|
|
|
Post by bushog on Feb 27, 2024 12:20:43 GMT -5
Pretty funny really. When I posted a picture of a page from one of Keith's Books where he referred to the 45 Colt as the "Long Colt," everybody flipped out. Guess it depends on which way the winds blowing? It’s always blowing in my face…well, you know…. |
|
|
|
Post by boolitdesigner on Feb 27, 2024 12:30:21 GMT -5
Pretty funny really. When I posted a picture of a page from one of Keith's Books where he referred to the 45 Colt as the "Long Colt," everybody flipped out. Guess it depends on which way the winds blowing? It really depends on what you’ve seen and done. Keith saw the boxes of 45 short colt {and the cartridges marked so}, as I have seen also and held in my hand. There was a 45 Short Colt, produced for a relatively short time period. |
|
|
|
Post by Encore64 on Feb 27, 2024 12:36:04 GMT -5
Pretty funny really. When I posted a picture of a page from one of Keith's Books where he referred to the 45 Colt as the "Long Colt," everybody flipped out. Guess it depends on which way the winds blowing? It really depends on what you’ve seen and done. Keith saw the boxes of 45 short colt {and the cartridges marked so}, as I have seen also and held in my hand. There was a 45 Short Colt, produced for a relatively short time period. Agree 100%... |
|
|
|
Post by revolvercranker on Feb 27, 2024 12:40:27 GMT -5
Keith said that he preferred the 45 Colt if using factory loads, and 44 Special with (his) handloads. Yes, I probably should have been clearer. Didn't praise the 45 Colt as being suitable for +P Loads. As I went on to say, it was due to the guns available during his experiments. The 44 Special had much thicker walls and was suitable for such. Also, as I've posted, if Keith would have had a Blackhawk available to work with, history might have painted a different story. As John Taffin has pointed out, by time the Blackhawk 45 Colt was introduced, the 44 Magnum was well established. No matter, Dick Casull ended up developing the 454 Casull and John Linebaugh gave us the 5-Shot 45 Colt. All's well that ends well... Maybe Mr Taflin should have mentioned this: Ruger had 'plans' to bring out the .45 Colt and .44 Special following the .357 in '55.... But then the .44 Magnum arrived in '56 and all all thought of .44 Special and .45 Colt were shelved on that platform. |
|
|
|
Post by revolvercranker on Feb 27, 2024 12:43:01 GMT -5
Pretty funny really. When I posted a picture of a page from one of Keith's Books where he referred to the 45 Colt as the "Long Colt," everybody flipped out. Guess it depends on which way the winds blowing? It really depends on what you’ve seen and done. Keith saw the boxes of 45 short colt {and the cartridges marked so}, as I have seen also and held in my hand. There was a 45 Short Colt, produced for a relatively short time period. .....but 45 Colt came out first, then some of the whimps couldn't handle it so the 45 Short Colt was devised. Also S&W's Schofield didn't have a long enough cylinder to be able to use the 45 Colt. That's not saying the revolver wasn't strong enough. |
|
|
|
Post by rjm52 on Feb 29, 2024 7:30:30 GMT -5
Once read that the reason the .38-40 was so popular was that it was the lowest recoiling handgun round that would reliably end a gunfight...
|
|
|
|
Post by bigmuddy on Feb 29, 2024 8:23:09 GMT -5
My response will probably “stir the pot” a bit, but here goes!
We currently own 5 rifles and 6 revolvers in 38 w.c.f. The number of rounds I have fired in this great cartridge would number in the hundreds of thousands! (My wife and I shot CAS competition for 23 years and it was our cartridge of choice). I only say this to show I have a little bit of experience with the round. The 44 w.c.f. not so much. I have handled and fired several 44-40’s and have owned a few.
The question of “why” the 38-40 existed comes up often when ballistics are not much different. In my limited experience with the 44-40, I have found the 38-40 to be more accurate. Four of our rifles are original Winchesters and they are all tack drivers. One from 1886 with a less than perfect bore shoots amazingly well. I have a Uberti 1873 that “was” a 44-40. It shot pretty good, but I had it re-lined to 38-40 and it’s accuracy is much better now. I have a friend that is a devout fan of the 44-40. He is also a very accomplished competitor in long range “cowboy” shooting. In the pistol caliber category he has taken home a pile of trophies with his 1894 Marlin …. In 38-40.
Finally, the 44-40 was more popular than 38-40 in the Colt SAA. However there were almost twice as many 38’s in the Colt Bisley model than there were 44’s. Remember the Bisley model Colt was designed as a target competition revolver. Maybe the 38-40 was more accurate??? (The largest number of Bisleys were 32-20’s. They’re pretty accurate too)
Dan
|
|
