.44WCF vrs .45Colt

[Marshal Deadwood]

Tweet

I have a '73 in .45Colt....but be honest,,brutally honest,,,,how does the accuracy compare between the two ? With... for one,,,,smokeless (Trailboss,etc) and second,,,,with real powder (black powder) ?

I an considering another rifle and some point,,and would really like a .44WCF for the historic slant...and a 'calibre' synopsis would be apprecaited.

Thanks gentlemen,

MD

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

I agree with Seth that there is probably no significant difference in accuracy between 45 Colt and 44-40 in a rifle, all other things being equal.

However I must respectfully disagree with him on a couple of his points.

You do not absolutely need a Lee Factory Crimp Die to reload 44-40. I loaded 44-40 for years with a standard RCBS 3 die set, seating and crimping in one step just the way the die set was designed. You just have to be very careful with your die settings.

The bottle neck shape has nothing to do with how well 44-40 seals the chamber in a rifle. It is the thinness of the brass that makes the difference. 44-40 brass tends to run around .007 thick at the case mouth, 45 Colt tends to run around .012 thick. With those numbers, the thinner 44-40 brass will just naturally expand and seal better, given the same amount of pressure. Trust me, high pressure gasses have no problem finding their way around corners, and the taper of the bottle neck shape of the 44-40 is so slight that the gas would find its way around it if there was any leak path at all. Personally I have always felt that the reason Winchester designed bottle neck cartridges was because they would feed a little bit better in a rifle mechanism. The 45 Colt was designed as a revolver round, so feed issues were not a concern. You load a revolver by manually stuffing the rounds into the chambers. But a lever action rifle feeds itself, so it requires a cartridge that feeds reliably. The only straight cased cartridge Winchester ever designed for a lever gun was the 44 Henry. I believe their experience with that cartridge probably convinced them that a bottle neck cartridge would feed slightly more reliably than a straight cartridge, so every lever gun cartridge they designed after 1873 had a taper to it. Plus, Oliver Winchester had a thing for 44 caliber. When he hired Henry to rework the Volcanic design, the first cartridge that Henry came up with was a 38 caliber round. Winchester very wisely told him to go back to the drawing board and scale it up to 44 caliber.

I agree you need to run a little bit slower when loading 44-40, again, because of those thin necks. If the shell sits a little bit off center on the shell holder or shell plate and you carelessly slam it into the bottom of a die, you will probably crumple the neck and ruin the shell. The more robust 45 Colt shell will just shrug off the blow. I know this to be a fact, I have done it plenty of times.

I always say that 44-40 is not difficult to reload, but it is a little bit fussy.

Yes, 44-40 brass is a bit more expensive.

And those thin necks of the 44-40 also make them susceptable to being squashed if stepped on. When I get my brass back from the brass pickers, I often get one or two that have been bent or mishapen after somebody accidentally stepped on it. I can usually reform them with the business end of a 50 BMG round at the loading table, but occaissionally one will be too badly squashed and I have to discard it. 45 Colt brass usually survives being stepped on without a problem.

Everything is a compromise in life. 44-40 is no different. Yes, it seals the chamber better and is a great cartridge for Black Powder in a rifle. But it is a little bit fussier to reload and costs a little bit more. You pays your money, you takes your choice.

[Trailrider]

Driftwood +1!

[Hoof Hearted]

With regards to this whole "44 WCF vs. 45 Colt" sealing better, so as to not get blowback with Black Powder issue.........

One point no one seems to be making is that the SAAMI specs for the 45 Clot chamber are MUCH more generous than the 44 WCF. What this means is that the thicker (i.e. stiffer) case wall of the 45 Colt has farther to go during the very brief moment that pressure causes it to expand. There are ways around this and if one were to have a reamer ground to minimum tolerances and then chamber an unchambred barrel the blowback might not be such an issue (of course this is not feasible normally).

So then we either anneal, load a larger, softer bullet (might require a larger reamer), or use full doses of black powder (or a combination of these things) to try to eliminate blowback.

HH

[Virginia Gentleman]

If shooting smokeless powder it is in my experience not a problem with any small blow back with .45 Colt.  Shooting BP there may be an issue with blow back gasses and soot causing fouling that can affect feeding into the chamber.

[Coffinmaker]

Blow-By with the .45 Colt can be a problem in a long match.  The buildup of crud at the front of the Carrier Block can make the carrier block real sticky.  Sticky enough the rifle jams if the carrier block is powered by just the original springs or especially if lighter springs are used.

Back to the original question(s).  There is no appreciable difference in accuracy with either powder.  Select the bullet the rifle likes and all will be well.

The historical issue.  In the time period we portray, NO long gun was chambered in .45 Colt.  The .45 Colt case of the time period was not designed to work reliably in a self loading rifle.  Historically correct for the '73 is 44WCF.

Coffinmaker

[Trailrider]

[snip] Back to the original question(s).  There is no appreciable difference in accuracy with either powder.  Select the bullet the rifle likes and all will be well.

The historical issue.  In the time period we portray, NO long gun was chambered in .45 Colt.  The .45 Colt case of the time period was not designed to work reliably in a self loading rifle.  Historically correct for the '73 is 44WCF.

Coffinmaker

And, until around 1878 the .44-40 (aka .44 WCF) was not a revolver round.  Many folks packed a .44-40 rifle and a .45 LC pistol. This could and did lead to problems:  Texas Ranger George Lloyd found himself in a firefight with some Indians.  He inadvertantly loaded a .45 round into his Winchester '73.  This jammed the rifle. Fotunately, he had a '73, not a '66 or Henry. He took out his pocket knife, unscrewed the sideplate screw, removed the plates, and removed the offending round...and lived to tell the tale!   I have done this myself, and with a modern-made Henry. It is considerably more difficult to clear that jam, which is why I eventually switched my pistols to .44-40 Ruger Vaqueros.

[PJ Hardtack]

Some good input offered here! Nothing I could add.

I've got both straight wall (.44 Mag/Spl. B-92, .45 Colt 'Lightning') and bottle neck (44-40 Henry and '66) rifles. The 44-40s don't smudge with BP loads and I can live with the case smudging of .44/.45 Colt brass as i'm too lazy to anneal the brass.

Like Driftwood said, you get the odd case crumple or wrinkle that will prevent chambering in some revolvers, but my rifles eat those rounds just fine.

If the historical aspect matters to you, then the choice is plain - 44-40. Accuracy wise, how good a rifle shot are you? I can't tell the difference.

The ammo confusion problem is a matter of training, using different coloured ammo boxes, whatever. Matching pistols and rifle calibres is the obvious solution. Good excuse to buy more guns!

[Coffinmaker]

There is a partial fix to the sticky Carrier Block.  Positive Slam Down needs to be added to the Carrier Block Arm.  This modification ensures that the lever powers the carrier block ALL the way down.  Then all the right side lever spring has to do is retain the carrier block "up" long enough for the breach block to strip and feed the next round.

There is also a partial fix to the .45 Colt case.  Use a .45 expander in the 44-40 case (carefully), load .45 bullets then fire form the case to your chamber.  You still have the problem of remembering these fire formed cases wont go in your 44-40 any more.  Ah, this has worked well with BP and SUBS.  I haven't done it smokeless ........ yet.

Coffinmaker 

[Slowhand Bob]

I am not a historian, even if you squint reeeal hard while looking my way BUT if you can get by the many other squints ya gotta make to arrive at a 44-40 Henry, boy have I gots a plan fer yee.  My dream gun, yet to be realized, would be an 18" barled Indianized Henry in .45 Colt and with a short carrier installed.  This could not only be used with my cap and ball pistolas but would also fit in pretty well with the .45 conversion revolvers and with just a little bit of squint, at a short distance, one could imagine they were loading up them original Henry .44s.  One day!!! 

[Dakota Widowmaker]

I have found Winchester brass and dead-soft lead bullets to be the best solution for shooting black powder in 45lc.

I have even taken to annealing the case mouths of Winchester brass to make it as soft as possible and then putting a firm roll crimp on the rounds using the crimp die.

BP in 45LC requires some extra effort, but, it can be very accurate. I use the PRS rounds exclusively with FFFg Goex Express and its VERY clean and zero leading. This works in both my Winchester 94 Ranger model and my 92 Rossi.

My 1860 Henry is in 44-40 and I have never had issues with it, except for finding brass at reasonable prices. I am soo glad I bought 1K back in 2006 when I got my rifle...

[KWK]

I have always felt that the reason Winchester designed bottle neck cartridges was because they would feed a little bit better in a rifle mechanism. The 45 Colt was designed as a revolver round, so feed issues were not a concern... The only straight cased cartridge Winchester ever designed for a lever gun was the 44 Henry. I believe their experience with that cartridge probably convinced them that a bottle neck cartridge would feed slightly more reliably than a straight cartridge, so every lever gun cartridge they designed after 1873 had a taper to it.

I can see that a tapered cartridge should feed more reliably; but in practice, are people with modern Henry/66/73 in .45 Colt having any woes--other than blowback with BP?

Some place I saw a forum post with pictures of early .45 Colt cases, and it was pretty obvious why a rifle's extractor could have trouble with it, but modern solid head cases are different--or are they, with regards to extraction?

One last thought: Perhaps the choice of a bottle neck case was simply to eek out a bit more speed?

[Trailrider]

Depending on the brand, modern .45 LC brass has a slightly larger in diameter rim than the originals. Also, since they are solid brass, rather than folded gilding metal, there is no tendency for the extractor to tear through the rim. SOME manufacturers undercut the head just in front of the rim (which does NOT weaken the case at all), providing a bit more room for the extractor hook, in case the latter is a tad long.  Aside from that, the main reason for preferring .44-40 over .45 LC is the blowby question, and the "fact" that chambering a RIFLE in .45 LC is agin' the laws of Nature!  (Just like running a freight train nowadays with that little box on the last car, instead of a waycar (caboose) is agin' Nature!  )

[Tuolumne Lawman]

I started with 44-40 in a Henry with real black, and never had a fouling problem, probably because the 44-40 brass with its thin mouth is designed to seal the chamber against blow back.  I switched to a 45 Colt Henry so I could load my .44 rimfire duplication load with Schofield cases.  I experience LOTS of fouling, even with well lubed bullets.  At time I had to cycle the action while pouring water from my canteen to free it up, especially after more than 5 or 6 stages.  I have switched back to .44-40, as Winchester and Marlin intended.

[Slowhand Bob]

Actually they did not intend for the 44-40 tapered round until after the Henry became history.  I do not know the answers but I am thinking, until corrected, that it was softer thinner case materials that made the early 44 straight walled brass seal when used in the Henrys?  Not sure what prompted the change after the Henry and early '66s but the tapered cases introduced with the '73 must have offered advantages other than chamber sealing?  No doubt the new short 45 cases and the 44 Russian cases more closely resemble, at a glance, the original short fat cases introduced with those early rifles.  It would seem that the 44-40 brass did retain its thinner case wall at the mouth while the two newer straight wall cases did not use that idea.  I do know that not all 44-40 cases are made to be black powder friendly now days, with only the Winchester and Starline brass working well in my guns.  I'm afraid that the world has left some of us behind and we must now try to make it fit with what makes it more closely work in each of our own minds!

[Tuolumne Lawman]

All .44 Henry rimfires were made from soft copper, and did a good job sealing the chamber.  The .44 WCF was tapered to aid in feeding and especially extraction, and was made from brass rather than copper to make the rims stronger.  Copper rims on rimfires (.44 Henry, 56-50, 56-56, etc) and on .50-70 Benet primed cases tended to shear off with extractors, especially with dirty chambers, where the copper cases were more prone to stick than brass ones.  Winchester engineered the very thin case mouth on .44 WCF and .38 WCF brass cases to achieve the same sealing effect as the soft copper cases.

[Driftwood Johnson]

Some place I saw a forum post with pictures of early .45 Colt cases, and it was pretty obvious why a rifle's extractor could have trouble with it, but modern solid head cases are different--or are they, with regards to extraction?

Was this the photo you saw?



Or perhaps this?



Or perhaps this?

[KWK]

It was closest to the last one, but it was a sectioned case. The tiny rim was of folded construction and rather rounded at the edges. The modern .45 Colt case I have in my small collection has a solid rim nearly square in section.

Which brings up a question. My Lyman load book says the small Colt rims can rip off in the die. How common is this? Is it more of a problem with regular or with carbide dies?

[Steel Horse Bailey]

I have and have loaded/reloaded 8-10 times with EACH of the 2300 PLUS Winchester cases I own.  Half of those loadings have been using smokeyless, full-power loads using Bullseye, Unique, Win 231, Clays and even a little Titegroup, and the rest of the time with full cases of 3f (and occasionally 2f) Goex - and a few with Pyrodex. 

Of the total, I have probably lost 9-10 to cracking or splits and perhaps 3 to "attention issues" which resulted in crushed necks.  (I don't know how many were simply swallowed by the range god, who MUST be fed once in a while and certainly at least once per shooting session.)

           

       

     

I use Dillon and Lee carbide sizing dies (I have 2 sets already adjusted to the projectile used) and I have NEVER had a rim incident.  I think that happen a lot more "back in the day" than nowadays, when brass cartridge manufacturing technology was newer. 

It seldom happens, 'tho I'd hesitate to say "never."

[Driftwood Johnson]

It was closest to the last one, but it was a sectioned case. The tiny rim was of folded construction and rather rounded at the edges. The modern .45 Colt case I have in my small collection has a solid rim nearly square in section.

If the rim was folded, then it was a Benet primed round. The last photo I posted is a Benet primed round. Benet primed rounds did not have a conventional primer. From the outside they looked like a rimfire round, with no visible primer. The priming compound was deposited on the inside of the rear of the case. An anvil plate was seated inside the case and pressed against the priming compound. The anvil plate was held in place by two crimps on the outside of the case. That's what the dent near the bottom of the case is. When the firing pin struck the rear of the case, the priming compound was compressed between the rear of the case and the anvil plate. As it fired, the hot gasses vented through a hole in the plate to ignite the main powder charge. Benet primed rounds were developed at the Frankford Arsenal by the US Government. The very first 45 Colt rounds produced were of the Benet design, as were the first 45-70 Govt rounds. The case of a Benet primed round was copper, not brass, copper being softer and more pliable than brass so the priming compound could be ignited. But the problem with copper cased rounds was the extractor of a Trapdoor rifle could rip right through the case, jamming the round in the chamber. Not a problem with a revolver like the Colt, that poked its empties out from the inside.

The 45-70 round on the left in this photo is Benet primed. Notice the copper color and the dents at the bottom holding the anvil plate in place.



Here is a photo of the head stamp. See how the Benet Primed round looks like a rimfire? It is not, it is centerfire. The markings on the head indicate that the round was made at the Frankford Arsenal in June of 1878. F for Frankford, 6 for the month and 78 for the year. I forget what the R stands for.





Here is another photo of some Benet Primed rounds. 45 Colt on the left, probably a 45 Schofield in the middle. The sectioned view shows the anvil plate and the folded rim construction.




The 44 Henry round was copper cased. You can see one in one of the photos I posted earlier. Both the Henry rifle and the Winchester 1866 were chambered for the 44 Henry Rimfire round. Don't forget, the Henry round was rimfire. Rimfire rounds need to be relatively soft or they will not dent well enough to fire the priming compound. In fact, both the Henry and the 1866 had split firing pins that struck the rim simultaneously in two different spots to help ensure ignitioin. When centerfire cartridges like the 44-40 emerged there was no longer any need for the cartridge case to be soft. So cartridge brass was used for them. Cartridge brass is 70% copper and 30% zinc. It is formulated specifically to be easily cold worked without work hardening. It also has a very good memory, so it will shrink back slightly in diameter after firing, helping prevent it getting stuck in a chamber.

Regarding ripping off the rim of a modern 45 Colt round in a sizing die, I wouldn't worry about it. I have resized thousands of modern 45 Colt rounds in my carbide RCBS dies and have never ripped off a rim.

Knock wood.

[w44wcf]

DJ,
Great pics and information.  Thank you.


I started my 45 Colt journey in 1974 when I purchased a Ruger Blackhawk.  I eventually added 2 more 45 Colt revolvers, then a Marlin Cowboy Rifle in 1997, just to see what the vintage round would do in a rifle. 

I got into b.p. loading around 1999 and never had a bit of trouble with blowby because 1.) I annealed the case necks, and,   2.) only neck sized the brass (looks more like a 44-40).

Regarding rim damage, back in 1974, I had purchased a set of Lyman dies with a Lyman shellholder. I never had any trouble with rim damage during the sizing operation, but I did when seating the primers in the press which required more pressure....especially with the tighter fitting CCI300's back then.

I eventually discovered that the shellholder was meant for balloon head brass and thus was slightly wider than the correct shellholder for modern 45 Colt brass. A switch to the correct shellholder solved the problem.

Like the others have indicated, I to have had no issues in reloading  1000's of 45 Colt cases over the years ....when I used the correct shellholder.

w44wcf     

[Rowdy Fulcher]

Howdy
I have been reloading 45 Colt brass since back in the 1980's , the day I bought my black hawk in 45 lc . The gun shop owner asked me Why are you buying that obsolete caliber ? Hasn't things changed . Now as far as having any trouble with the rims , never had any trouble . Both cartridges are excellent rounds , but it's all about what you want .

[Coffinmaker]

Talk about digging up bones!!!  I'm not sure where this discussion is suppose to go however.  Accuracy isn't an issue, both will shoot as well as can be expected with coarse iron sights within their effective range limitations.  Both reload very well.  Partially because of very generous chamber dimensions, the .45 shoots a little dirty, but, that's what case tumblers are for.
If you really want a cleaner shooting .45, it's simple, use 44-40 cases.  In today's guns, both feed and extract/eject equally well.  SO:

What's the big deal?

Coffinmaker