Which Cowboy Rifle & Caliber

Status
Not open for further replies.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the OP was looking for a walkabout rifle, not case competition rifle? If so then running loads hot enough to properly seal the breach shouldn't be too much of an issue should it?
I'm interested in a .45 lever gun so I'm curious where this all ends up. If I'm gonna get puffed in the face with stuff every time pull the trigger, I think I'd rather go with a .44
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the OP was looking for a walkabout rifle, not case competition rifle? If so then running loads hot enough to properly seal the breach shouldn't be too much of an issue should it?
I'm interested in a .45 lever gun so I'm curious where this all ends up. If I'm gonna get puffed in the face with stuff every time pull the trigger, I think I'd rather go with a .44
Don't worry about being "puffed in the face." A good, standard load for the .45 Colt from any reloading manual will be perfectly safe.
 
Driftwood , I am not going to participate in CAS . I think I wrote that I wanted a cowboy rifle for walking around my property and I might take a deer with it , but mostly plinking fun .
 
Sorry.

I guess when you stated cowboy rifle I thought you meant CAS in addition to walking on your property.

What I said about the ease of loading 44-40 vs 45 Colt still stands, as well as the blow by issue.

While the original Winchesters were never chambered for 45 Colt, plenty of modern ones have been, and blow by is not a big problem with them. Just load your rounds hot enough to fully obdurate. In other words, stay away from the really light loads. If you are looking for hot loads, the Model 1892 is a stronger action than the Model 1873. No hot loads in a '73. Personally I don't own any rifles chambered for 45 Colt, but I have quite a few 44-40s and a few 38-40s. That is because the first lever gun I ever bought was a 44-40, and once I had learned to load the cartridge I saw no need for a 45. But I have plenty of 45 Colt revolvers and load for them too.

I only have one lever gun chambered for 357 Mag, a Marlin Model 1894CS. That's it at the bottom of this photo. A real pleasure to shoot with 38 Specials with almost no recoil, a really hot little rifle when fired with 357 Mag. It's a very handy little rifle with its 18 1/2" barrel, it holds 9 357 Mags and 10 38 Specials. The other rifle is a Marlin Model 1894 built in 1895, chambered for 44-40.


1894_1894CS_02.jpg
 
I'd vote for the '92, tang safety and all. Personally, even when used as a "walk-around" carbine, I don't want any barrel shorter than 20 inches. Too, even with my larger than average, gloved hands, I've never seen a reason for an odd-looking (to me), awkward-shaped, big loop lever.
 
The big loop lever is pure Hollywood. It was created for John Wayne in the 1939 movie Stage Coach. The whole point was to be able to spin cock the rifle. He did the same thing in 1969 in True Grit. Completely useless otherwise. In CAS it tends to slow shooters down because there is too much slop where the hand fits into the lever.
 
With apologies to affictionados of the .44-40, that is not an easy cartridge to reload, especially for a new hand loader.

And with apologies to affictionados of the .357, that is a bit lighter cartridge than I would choose for deer and similar sized game.

I would go with either the .45 Colt or the .44 Magnum, and use a Keith-style cast bullet.
 
With apologies to affictionados of the .44-40, that is not an easy cartridge to reload, especially for a new hand loader.

With all due respect, the very first cartridge I ever taught myself to reload was 45 Colt. Once I had that under my belt moved onto 44-40.

If I was able to do that, how hard can it be?

If somebody wants to shoot 45 Colt or 44 Mag, that is their choice.

But 44-40 is not all that hard to reload.

As I have said many times, it is just a bit fussier than loading 45 Colt.
 
I'll add to the buckle issue. I took up 32-20 after 3 years of reloading experience. I've crushed maybe 4 cases out of 5,465 rounds loaded to date. I've ruined far more 357 in belling dies set up for 38spl.
 
It is all about how thick or thin the brass is. 45 Colt brass tends to run around .012 thick at the case mouth, 44-40 tends to run around .007 - .008 thick at the case mouth.

Another great post, Driftwood. Was period 45 LC brass thinner? I would assume that light loading would cause poor case obturation and blowback in the revolvers. Are people having blowback with 45LC and revolvers? As far as I know, no period rifles were chambered in 45LC, that is a modern phenomenon.

I never had blowback in my 1894 Marlin, it was in 44 Magnum, and I shot full power loads!
 
Another great post, Driftwood. Was period 45 LC brass thinner? I would assume that light loading would cause poor case obturation and blowback in the revolvers. Are people having blowback with 45LC and revolvers? As far as I know, no period rifles were chambered in 45LC, that is a modern phenomenon.

I never had blowback in my 1894 Marlin, it was in 44 Magnum, and I shot full power loads!
You would not have blowback with full power loads -- it's a phenomenon associated with underpowered loads.
 
With apologies to affictionados of the .44-40, that is not an easy cartridge to reload, especially for a new hand loader.

As long as you properly bell the case mouths and keep everything lined up in your press, .44-40 is not materially harder to load than any other round. It requires lubing the cases when resizing, but that's just a little extra work, it doesn't make it any harder.
 
Another great post, Driftwood. Was period 45 LC brass thinner? I would assume that light loading would cause poor case obturation and blowback in the revolvers. Are people having blowback with 45LC and revolvers? As far as I know, no period rifles were chambered in 45LC, that is a modern phenomenon.

Interesting questions.

Yes, rifles chambered for 45 Colt is a completely modern phenomenon, dating to the 1980s. Before that, lever guns were never chambered for 45 Colt. The old traditional Winchester cartridges were what were usually chambered in rifles; 44-40, 38-40, 32-20, and 25-20 for the short action 'pistol caliber' rifles.

I just grabbed some old Remington-UMC 45 Colt balloon head cases I had laying around, and they do tend to run a tad thinner than modern stuff. Most are running around .010 - .012 at the case mouth. Without cutting a few in half I can't measure much further down than the case mouths. Cartridge brass tends to get thicker the further down it goes, so measuring case mouths is the best way to judge. Grabbed some modern Starline cases and they are running around .012 - .013. I'm not sure how old the balloon head cases are, probably from the 1940s or so. Not super old. I have one box that have obviously been fired, and another box that are virgin. One of these days I want to load them up to see if I can get 40 grains of FFg in them, rather than the 35 or so grains I currently put in modern solid head cases. Another one of those projects I have not gotten around to yet.

Here is a comparison of what one of the balloon head cases looks like when sawed in half compared to a modern solid head case. The balloon head is on the left. You can see why they had a little bit more powder capacity. No, I don't know where that one went, so I cannot measure it part way down.

rem-umc%20balloon%20head%20winchester%20solid%20head_zps4pe5oxcl.jpg




I have not loaded any 45 Colt with Smokeless in a long time, but I do remember there was a little bit of blowby on my 45 Colt cases. I was loading 7.5 grains of Unique under a 250 grain bullet. Certainly not a mouse fart load, but not a magnum load either. What tended to happen was there would be one streak of soot most of the length of the case. It is generally thought this is because when the round is fired, gravity has it sitting down slightly in the chamber, any clearance that exists would then be on the 'up' side. So any blowby would be one streak of soot along the 'top' of the case. This was only with revolvers, I do not own any rifles chambered for 45 Colt.

Frankly, I don't think the .001 or so thinner case mouths with the balloon head cases is significant. Certainly not as significant as .007 thick 44-40 case mouths. That it why 44-40 (and 38-40) are the darlings of Black Powder shooters. The thinner cases expand more easily to seal the chamber.

A rifle barrel is basically a pipe.Seal the chamber and all the soot winds up going out the muzzle or sitting in the barrel. Revolvers are a different story. Because of the barrel/cylinder gap, fouling winds up everywhere anyway. Up until recently I did not own any revolvers chambered for 44-40. I own a couple now, plus a couple chambered for 38-40. Some day it would be fun to see if there is less soot on the cases with my 44-40 wheelguns than with my 45 Colt wheelguns. I doubt it really matters, with Black Powder there is black soot being blown everywhere, no matter what.

Just for fun, the very earliest 45 Colt cartridges were copper cased. Not brass. The copper was softer than brass, so they probably expanded just fine to seal a revolver chamber. No 45 Colt rifles yet, remember?

This is what the very first 45 Colt and 45 Schofield cartridges looked like. The two rounds in the center are a 45 Colt on the left and a 45 Schofield on the right. Their modern counterparts are next to them.

rimed%2045%20schofield%20brightness%2020%20contrast%2020%20sharp%204%20contrast%2020_zpsz1dn3c1d.jpg




I only have a few of these, so I am not going to pull the bullets, or cut them up or anything.


I forget now where I got this photo, but I did get permission to use it. This style of priming was known as Benet Priming, after the superintendent of the Frankford Arsenal. The crimps near the bottom of the cases hold an anvil plate in place inside the case. The priming material is sandwiched between the anvil plate and the rear of the case. When the firing pin struck the rear of the case, the priming material was compressed and it ignited. The flame passed through the two holes to ignite the powder charge. Notice in the cutaway the rim is formed by being folded over. It is not cut, the way balloon head and modern cases are. This type of case is sometimes called 'folded rim' cartridges.

benet.jpg




When viewed from the rear, Benet primed cases look like rimfires because there is no visible primer. They are not, they are inside primed centerfire rounds. But just as with rimfires, they could only be fired once, they could not be reloaded.

45ColtBenetPrimedBox03_zps73800f6e.jpg
 
my two .44 mag lever action rifles that I shoot lower pressure loads in. close to hot 44-40 loads with no blow by and they are a joy to shoot compared to the full .44 mag load I shoot. top is a newer Winchester 94 legesty, lower is a 1973 marlin 94 sporter.
 

Attachments

  • DSCN0099 (2).JPG
    DSCN0099 (2).JPG
    164.7 KB · Views: 7
  • DSCN0100 (2).JPG
    DSCN0100 (2).JPG
    157.4 KB · Views: 7
  • DSCN0101 (2).JPG
    DSCN0101 (2).JPG
    203.9 KB · Views: 7
  • DSCN0102 (2).JPG
    DSCN0102 (2).JPG
    216.5 KB · Views: 7
Last edited:
Question for you .

Winchesters current production list a 1892 carbine rifle and a short rifle , both have the same barrel length 20" . I think the only difference is the stock and finish . The carbine has less of a curve in the buttplate and the short rifle has a very crescent shape . Which shape is more correct to the original 1892 Winchester carbine rifle ?
 
Question for you .

Winchesters current production list a 1892 carbine rifle and a short rifle , both have the same barrel length 20" . I think the only difference is the stock and finish . The carbine has less of a curve in the buttplate and the short rifle has a very crescent shape . Which shape is more correct to the original 1892 Winchester carbine rifle ?
I believe the forend is different as well; the carbine has a barrel band, the short rifle the end cap. The rifle should have the crescent buttplate, IIRC.
 
Winchesters current production list a 1892 carbine rifle and a short rifle , both have the same barrel length 20" . I think the only difference is the stock and finish . The carbine has less of a curve in the buttplate and the short rifle has a very crescent shape . Which shape is more correct to the original 1892 Winchester carbine rifle ?

Howdy

One of my favorite subjects. Traditionally, Winchester made their rifles in three different configurations; Rifle, Carbine, and Musket.

This photo shows the different versions of the Model 1873 rifle, but the idea was the same with the Model 1892.

Rifles had the deep crescent shaped butt plate. They featured a metal fore end cap, and the magazine was suspended under the barrel by a hanger dovetailed into the barrel. Barrel lengths could vary widely. The first two photos show Model 1873s in the rifle configuration, one with a 24" barrel and one with a short 20" barrel.

Next down is a carbine. In the 19th Century a Winchester carbine had a less deeply contoured butt plate. While the butt plate of the rifle was a casting, the butt plate of the carbine was a shaped piece of heavy sheet metal. There was a flat on top of the comb of a Carbine.There was no fore end cap on a carbine, the magazine and fore end were held in place by barrel bands. The front sight of a carbine was sometimes set onto the barrel, sometimes welded to the top of the front barrel band. Carbine barrels could be various lengths, but 20" was standard. Also, the barrel of a Carbine tapered down more sharply than a rifle barrel.

Last was the Musket configuration. Yes, Muskets were rifled. The Musket configuration was like an overgrown Carbine. The same style stock and butt plate. The fore end of a Musket was much longer, reaching almost all the way to the muzzle. Three barrel bands were standard on a Musket. You don't see a whole lot of Winchester Muskets in this country, but quite a few were sold to foreign governments. Since they were military arms, they often had a bayonet mount on them.


winchesterconfigurations.jpg




This photo shows a Model 1892 rifle at the top and a Model 1892 Saddle Ring Carbine at the bottom. You can see pretty much all the different features I mentioned.

1892rifleandcarbine02_zps27b9bf1f.jpg




This photo demonstrates how much more tapered the carbine barrel is. Both are chambered for 44-40, but you can see how much thinner the barrel wall is on the carbine at the right. This is because it tapers down more than the rifle barrel. The rifle barrel pretty much has no taper at all. The front sight of this rifle is dovetailed into the barrel, the front sight of the carbine is brazed onto the barrel behind the front barrel band.

muzzlesrifleandsaddleringcarbine_zps9f08c536.jpg
 
Thanks Driftwood , sorry . It looks like the carbine would be easier to shoulder than the crescent buttplate of the rifle . What is your opinion on the different buttplates ? Is one typically more accurate than the other ? I was just wondering if the barrel ban affect the accuracy of the carbine . I wanted to go with the 44/40 short rifle , but Winchester doesn't offer it in that caliber , they do offer it in the carbine , but I don't really like the saddle ring and barrel band .
 
Last edited:
It looks like the carbine would be easier to shoulder than the crescent buttplate of the rifle . What is your opinion on the different buttplates ? Is one typically more accurate than the other ? I was just wondering if the barrel ban affect the accuracy of the carbine . I wanted to go with the 44/40 short rifle , but Winchester doesn't offer it in that caliber , they do offer it in the carbine , but I don't really like the saddle ring and barrel band .

Howdy Again

I ain't Craig, but I can tell you shooting a crescent butt plate requires a bit of a different technique than firing a modern 'shotgun' style butt plate. The crescent shaped butt plate was designed to encircle the shoulder joint. If you place it on the meaty part of the shoulder, any rifle with a significant recoil is going to dig those sharp points into your chest. Many years ago I owned a cut down 30-30 Winchester 1894 with a crescent shaped butt plate. I did not know then what I know now about shooting a crescent shaped butt plate, and that little rifle hurt like the dickens every time I pulled the trigger. I couldn't shoot it for more than two or three shots without flinching big time.

Shooting a crescent butt plate requires hiking the rifle out a little bit further on arm, so the crescent encircles the shoulder joint. That way, the points of the crescent prevent the stock from slipping up or down, which is exactly what they are designed to do. I have found that in order to use a crescent shaped butt plate properly, I have to stand more at an angle to the target. I also raise my right elbow up high enough to bring the rifle up to my face, rather than hunching over to bring my face down to the rifle.

In CAS, most of the really fast shooters opt for a carbine style butt plate. Or they place a leather cover over the points of the crescent, so they can face the target straight on with the butt on the meaty part of the shoulder and bring their face down to the gun. I find that standing at more of an angle to the target, tends to make me sling the rifle across my chest, so with the crescent encircling the shoulder joint, I raise the elbow and the gun comes right up to my face without hunching over. It takes a little getting used to, but most of my CAS rifles have crescent shaped butt plates.

As for the barrel band setup being less accurate, I have no idea, but I doubt it. At least not until you are shooting out to 300 yards, and 44-40 is not very good for that anyway.

Here are a few of my CAS rifles with crescent shaped butt plates.

My 44-40 Uberti 1860 "Iron Frame' Henry. Uberti correctly followed the crescent shape of the iron frame Henries with a rounded over top point of the crescent.

Henry07_zps6828738f.jpg




38-40 Winchester Model 1873 from 1887.

187303.jpg




32-20 Winchester Model 1892 from 1911. This one is a very mild shooter. Almost no recoil at all.

Model%201892%201911%2032-20%2002_zpsjnwdx0zf.jpg
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top