New Vaquero Strength.

[TiteGroups]

You were right Craig, I hadn't read that link. Thanks.

 

[Muley Gil]

I just reread Keith's Sixguns and in the chapter on Game Shooting, he talked about his .45 Colt loading of a 300 grain .45-70 bullet, sized to .454", over 35 grains of black powder. Elmer was trying to get away from the pointed bullets of the factory .45 Colt loads.

"Finally a weak .45 Colt case head blew off with this load.The gas blew the loading gate off of the gun, breaking its shank and cutting through the flesh of my trigger finger. Fom this experience I decided the bullet was a bit heavy for the thin cases and thin chamber walls of the cylinders."

 

[Texas Jack Black]

I just reread Keith's Sixguns and in the chapter on Game Shooting, he talked about his .45 Colt loading of a 300 grain .45-70 bullet, sized to .454", over 35 grains of black powder. Elmer was trying to get away from the pointed bullets of the factory .45 Colt loads.

"Finally a weak .45 Colt case head blew off with this load.The gas blew the loading gate off of the gun, breaking its shank and cutting through the flesh of my trigger finger. Fom this experience I decided the bullet was a bit heavy for the thin cases and thin chamber walls of the cylinders."

This is why so many still think the 45 is so weak . thank you for the info.

 

[Muley Gil]

I'm guessing that it was a combination of an cartridge case that had been reloaded many times over, plus a bit of internal black powder corrision, that caused the case to fail.

My first centerfire revolver was an OM .45 Colt Blackhawk and I reloaded some modern cases 20 times plus. Of course, some developed splits in the case mouth and occasionally in the body of the case. A little bit of Scotch tape fixed those though. :lol:

 

[CraigC]

It is my understanding as well that Keith made the switch to the 44 spec prior to 44 spec. solid head brass being available. meaning he shot both the 45Colt and the 44 spcl using balloon head cases.

Yep!

IMO, this leads me to believe the "exploded" 45Colt wasn't soley the result of weak cases, but instead a combination of thinner cylinder walls and the balloon head case. The 44 spcl using similar balloonhead cases handled Keith's hotter loads just fine. Why? thicker cylinder walls.

It wasn't the result of a "weak case" at all. Cases don't contain pressure, they only seal the chamber. It's the revolvers cylinder that contains pressure. It was indeed the weakness of the cylinder that let go and ultimately his overpressure load was to blame. He wrote it up as the fault of a weak case and thus the myth of the weak .45Colt case was born. So this is one of very few (I know of no others) circumstances where Elmer Keith was actually wrong.

The SAMMI specs for .45 Colt are in CUP not PSI. Hodgdon #26 gives standard .45 Colt data up to 16,200 CUP.

SAAMI spec for the .45Colt is 14,000psi.

I do however find it quite puzzling .that many ,powder companies list loads in the 25-30,000 for the Colt cartridge in some guns yet we still hear some say use only 14,000 .because the 45 Colt cartridge is only good for 14,000 Keith blew up his gun when?

Why is it puzzling? There are stronger guns available today and heavier loads are appropriate for them but the old guns still exist. So probably until the end of time, factory ammunition for the .45Colt will be limited to 14,000psi in deference to the old guns. As always, it is up to the handloader to maximize the potential of his/her guns and to know their limitations.

 

[CraigC]

You can definitely see how case head separations would have happened.

You can also see why no leverguns were chambered in .45Colt back in the late 1800's. That tiny rim coupled with the lack of an extractor groove.

 

[Texas Jack Black]

So 14,000 for the Colt 45 is only for the old guns and the new modern guns can handle well over the 14,000 number which is what we have been saying all along.
Cases are the vessel BUT, when the case expands to the cylinder wall the total thickness of the container has been increased. The case wall and the cylinder wall .I would think that the total cylinder strength has now been increased.

 

[Greebe]

My first centerfire revolver was an OM .45 Colt Blackhawk and I reloaded some modern cases 20 times plus.

I'm with you there. I still have and use some .45Colt brass(some R-P and some Win) that have easily seen 20 reloads with no problems. I have loaded everything from hot "ruger only" loads to middle of the road 255gr loads. I have used these in my Win 94 Trapper and my Acusport Bisley. The nice thing about the Bisley is that my chambers are very tight. They seem like they were reamed with a .454 Casull reamer. So this has really preserved my brass, unlike the oversided chambers of most .45Colts.

I laugh when I see people who think they need to buy new brass every few loadings. I need to start telling them that they should and send me the "old" brass that they have.:twisted:


Greebe

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

So 14,000 for the Colt 45 is only for the old guns and the new modern guns can handle well over the 14,000 number which is what we have been saying all along.
Cases are the vessel BUT, when the case expands to the cylinder wall the total thickness of the container has been increased. The case wall and the cylinder wall .I would think that the total cylinder strength has now been increased.

No Jack, that is incorrect. The small amount of thickness added by the brass is of no consequence. It is still the steel that is the limiting factor that contains the pressure, the addition of the brass does not add anymore strength to the combination. It is the weakest link theory. Apply enough pressure to shatter the steel and the brass will go right along with it, it does not add any strength at all.

Yes, 14,000 psi is the number for 45 Colt because of the large number of old revolvers still in circulation. As for the iron framed guns, as I have mentioned before, Colt did not factory warranty the Single Action Army for Smokeless Powder until 1900. In 1901 they began stamping the Verified Proof triangle on the trigger guard to verify that the gun was capable of withstanding Smokless Powder pressures. Guns prior to 1900, which would include all iron framed and iron cylindered guns should never be fired with Smokeless Powder, they cannot be depended on to take the sharp pressure spike of Smokeless Powder. It is the sharp pressure spike, not just the level of pressure, that can shatter the older metal.

According to Kuhnhausen, who knows as much about this subject as anybody, starting in 1873, and up to about SN 96,000 (up through mid 1883) the SAA had frames and cylinders made of malleable iron, not steel. Frames and cylinders between SN 96,000 and 180,000 (approx 1883 - 1898) were made of transitional materials generally similar to modern low-medium carbon steel. Guns made after SN 180,000 (approx 1898) had slightly higher carbon content. But as I have repeatedly stated on this forum, Colt did not feel confident in factory warrantying the SAA for Smokeless Powder pressures until 1900. The change after 1900 was because they were getting a better handle on heat treating these steels for strength. In 1935 with the chambering of the 357 Magnum in the SAA, Colt began using fine grain, higher tensile strength, ordinance quality steel for the 357 Magnum chambering, and soon began using this high strength steel for all their cylinders. It is these post 1935 guns that are the strongest, that may well be capable of higher pressure than the more fragile types of steel, but I am not going to go out on a limb and say it is OK.

But SAAMI will never change the 14,000 psi standard as long as all those pre-1935 guns are still in use, they are the ones that must not be fired with high pressure ammo, and it is the pre-1900 guns that must not be fired with Smokeless Powder at all.

 

[Texas Jack Black]

Thank you for the info Driftwood. Now I do not claim to know abot metal strength, But I do know a paper bag will burst if you put 10 cans of diced tomatos in . But if you put a bag inside a bag you can hold 22 cans :lol: and if you add a 1/4 in piece of plywood on top of a 1/2 in piece the combination will be stronger. so I ask what is the differance??

 

[Aggie01]

You can also see why no leverguns were chambered in .45Colt back in the late 1800's. That tiny rim coupled with the lack of an extractor groove.

Also, the .45 Colt was a patented proprietary chambering. Colt did not make leverguns, and no levergun manufacturer could chamber their gun for the .45 Colt.
The S&W No. 3 was certainly CAPABLE of handling the .45 Colt, it just couldn't be chambered in it LEGALLY.

 

[Greebe]

You can also see why no leverguns were chambered in .45Colt back in the late 1800's. That tiny rim coupled with the lack of an extractor groove.

Also, the .45 Colt was a patented proprietary chambering. Colt did not make leverguns, and no levergun manufacturer could chamber their gun for the .45 Colt.
The S&W No. 3 was certainly CAPABLE of handling the .45 Colt, it just couldn't be chambered in it LEGALLY.

I have heard this a lot but here is one thing that doesn't make sense to me. If Colt would not allow Winchester to chamber their 1873 Lever action rifle for the .45Colt, then why would Winchester permit Colt to manufacture their 1873 Colt Single Action Army's in .32-20, .38-40, and .44-40 cartridges?

I do know that Colt and Winchester had a agreement with each other that Colt would only make pistols, and Winchester would only make rifles. I believe that Colt violated the agreement when they made a rifle in the later part of the 1890's. I don't recall what the rifle was though.

If this is true maybe Winchester granted Colt the Rights to chamber their revolvers in the WCF cartridges, but perhaps Colt never reciprocated, I do not know.

Greebe

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Also, the .45 Colt was a patented proprietary chambering. Colt did not make leverguns, and no levergun manufacturer could chamber their gun for the .45 Colt.
The S&W No. 3 was certainly CAPABLE of handling the .45 Colt, it just couldn't be chambered in it LEGALLY.

I have heard this for years, but I don't know if it is true. I would like to see some documentation to prove it. Colt produced the Colt Burgess lever rifle to compete with the Winchester line of lever rifles. It has never been proved that there was an agreement between Colt and Winchester to stay out of each others markets, although Winchester did produce a couple of prototype revolvers at the time. But according to the Standard Catalog of Colt Firearms, by Rick Sapp the legend of collusion between the two gunmakers has never been documented.

The cylinders on S&W No. 3 revolvers were too short to accept the 45 Colt round, so legality is a moot point. That is why the 45 Schofield round was developed.

Colt won a contract to supply revolvers to the Army in 1873. S&W did not want to be left out of the bidding for an Army contract. S&W was not making a 45 caliber revolver at that time, their large frame revolvers were chambered for the 44 Russian and 44 S&W American rounds. The Army insisted it wanted its new service revolver to be a 45 caliber gun. S&W knew they could chamber their No. 3 revolvers for 45 caliber, but the cylinder was too short to accept the Colt round. Rather than lengthen the frame and cylinder to accept the longer round, they applied to the government with an alternative 45 caliber round, a bit shorter than the Colt round, and only holding about 28 grains of Black Powder vs the 40 grains of the Colt round. The Army accepted the S&W revolver and its 45 caliber round in 1875 awarding a small contract for I believe around 3000 revolvers. The gun became known as the Schofield revolver, named after the Army officer who suggested a modification to the latch to allow a mounted soldier to open the gun with one hand while riding. The round was known as the Revolver Ball Cartridge, Caliber .45 M1875. The civilian version became known as the 45 Schofield round.

Here is a photo that may be useful. Left to right in this photo the rounds are 44-40, 44 Special, 44 Russian, 44 S&W American, 44 Henry Rimfire, 45 Schofield, and 45 Colt. All the rounds in this photo are old rounds with the acception of the 44 Special and 45 Schofield rounds, they are my reloads with modern brass.