Why didn't Winchester originally make. '73 or '92 in .45 Colt?

[Doug.38PR]

Above said question.  If it can be done now, why couldn't it be done then. 

[Scattered Thumbs]

The .45 Colt case "back then" had almost no rim and it was made of copper not brass. It hadn't been designed to function in a repeating action with an extractor.

Also it was slower then the .44-40. So there was no big interest in it.

[Pettifogger]

Plus why would Winchester want to promote something with the "Colt" name on it?  A lot more Winchester rifles were sold that Colt revolvers.

[Advertising]

[Blackpowder Burn]

Not to mention that the thin-walled bottleneck cartridges (32WCF, 38WCf and 44WCF) sealed to the chamber better and largely prevented black powder fouling blowback into the action.  Thus far fewer cleaning and corrosion issues.

Ask someone about this today that tries to shoot BP ammo in one of these rifles chambered in 45 Colt.

[Pettifogger]

I see you added a great photo.  Looks like some original Benet primed .45 cases.  As you noted, virtually no rim and the case was very soft to allow the inside primed case to be ignited.

[Trailrider]

The .45 Colt case "back then" had almost no rim and it was made of copper not brass. It hadn't been designed to function in a repeating action with an extractor.

Also it was slower then the .44-40. So there was no big interest in it.

Originally, the .45 Colt cartridge was intended for the military, and the arsenal-made "brass", which was actually much softer gilding metal (aka copper). The first customers for a repeating rifle would have wanted a Winchester M1973 chambered in the same cartridge as their pistols (Colt's SAA), and they would have been Army officers and perhaps NCO's.  All it would have taken would have been a bunch of extraction failures, and it would have been written up in the Army/Navy Journal, and that would have sunk Winchester's hopes for selling the '73, and maybe the whole company.

Modern brass cartridge cases, along with slightly wider rims, make .45 LC rifles possible.

[Doug.38PR]

But since the .45 Colt was such a widely produced cartridge and handgun (I read the other day that it was 1/2 of SAA sales while .44-40 was 1/4 and the other 1/4 was other calibers), why didn't they wise up and make the brass for the .45 Colt suitable for use in Winchester's lever action to boost sales even more. 

[Black River Smith]

doug38pr,

You are in-a-sense answering your own question but you do not see the time period business logic and #'s.  People have already given you the answer above but I will try to add numbers.

Why would Winchester that developed the 44Henry, 44wcf(44/40), 38wcf(38/40), and 32wcf(32/20) and other caliber cartridges want to market a Colt caliber rifle?  

They were competitors in the firearms business market at that time.  Win wanted a government contract but never got one and relied of civilian sales.  Colt had a government contract and therefore knew were sales and production would go.  They really did not sell the 45Colt to the civilian market until 1876 because of government poduction.

Colt only developed the thuer, 44 Colt, 38 Colt and 45 Colt cartridges for there handguns.  All other calibers were chambered for other companies developed cartridges so 'Colt' could generate additional sales.

Win manufactured roughly 1,000,000 Model 1873 alone (1873 to 192x) compared to only roghly 350,000 Colt SAA from 1873 to 1940.  Who was doing better overall?

Look at your last statement and now take out those winchester calibers 1/4 and 1/4 and what is Colt overall sales.  Roughly 175,000 (45 and other odd calibers).  Who stands to profit from sales was/is the bottom line to your question?

These issues are what started Colt into making a Rifle and Winchester into producing a pistol. Both of which were stopped after an agreement between the two companies at the time.

editted

[Cliff Fendley]

But since the .45 Colt was such a widely produced cartridge and handgun (I read the other day that it was 1/2 of SAA sales while .44-40 was 1/4 and the other 1/4 was other calibers), why didn't they wise up and make the brass for the .45 Colt suitable for use in Winchester's lever action to boost sales even more.  

But keep in mind during the same time frame Winchester probably produced more 44-40 1873 rifles than all of Colts SAA combined. Plus even today the ones of us that shoot black powder know very well how superior the 44-40 or any of the WCF cartridges is over the 45 colt in a rifle so why would Winchester want to bother?

I have owned rifles chambered in 45 colt and I have originals and reproductions chambered in the WCF calibers 32,38,and 44. I can tell you Winchester knew very well what they were doing when they designed the cartridges for their rifle. IMO the 45 Colt cartridge as great as it is in a revolver it is an inferior cartridge in a rifle especially if shooting black powder which is all they had until near the turn of the century. The bottlenecks feed better, seal the chamber better, eject better, the guns just run a bit smoother with the cartridges they were designed with, even with smokeless powder. Sure the little 38 mouse fart loads many competitive shooters use feed and eject fine but when loaded to the levels and components available back then there is no comparison.

So the answer to your question is in the form of a question "why would they?"

[Scattered Thumbs]

 You asked why Winchester didn't produce a .45 Colt 73. I ask you different, why didn't Colt make their Lightning in .45 Colt either?   
Short answer. The caliber wasn't adequate.

[Cliff Fendley]

Don't forget the Colt Burgess rifle. Colt chambered them in 44 WCF not their own 45 Colt cartridge.