1860 Colts with Kirst Konverter cylinders for NCOWS???

[Black River Smith]

French Jack, you are right about the 32MAG appearance( I understand your point) but it was not approved because of its single shot, long range  capabilities.

It is a modern handgun cartridge, to most.  The same as this new 45CSpec

[Books OToole]

It seems to me that the "Cowboy .45 Special" is a .45 Webley with a different head stamp.

I've got some .44 Russian cartridges that say .44 Special (a twentieth century cartridge);  but they're not.

Books

[River City John]

  Now I'd like to make a suggestion. . .
if Dick Dastardly brings a box of those 'curious little cartridges' to the National to sample and. . .
I'll have my .45lc carbine to test fire a few stages, uhmmm, rounds. . .
now if French Jack will loan me his USFA in .45lc. . . .

(an altogether sinister plan begins to take shape)

[Advertising]

[Books OToole]

I'm beginning to see a new character.  Nigel Higgins, of the London Times, reporting on the demise of the "nobel savage" of North America.  He is carrying a New Model 3 S & W (Beretta Laramie) chambered for .45 Webley (one of the more commom of the non-.44 Russian chamberings.) Hmmmm.


Books


PS - I like RCJ's idea too.

[Adirondack Jack]

If that be the case then I can support those that are shooting Webley's needing a readily available cartridge. I was under the impression that the 45 Cowboy was for shooting in rifle's and pistols of .45 Colt chambering. As for as I know virtually everything chamber for .45 Colt can also chamber the 45 Schofield, so it seems kind of useless to approve yet another cartridge to shoot in those guns. At least they interchange in my .45 caliber handguns. I think where the doubt comes into play is approving something of modern origin when there is plenty of proper calibers already approved.

We all know from past experience what happens when NCOWS starts allowing more and more questionable items into the approved list. Heck we can't even come up with a justification to use proper historical hideout, pocket pistol or belly guns. Yet we now have a modern 45 Cowboy cartridge that get's more support. For me personally I would never use the round, but I have to consider the big picture. If the congress approves it then I will live with that, but it still goes against my feeling of authenticity by placing NCOWS in the same light as what got us into trouble from the very beginning, the Ruger Vaquero. Next we'll be looking at the Henry Big Boy to go with the Cowboy cartridge. Sooner or later we have to say enough is enough.

Joss

Howdy, Joss.

In .44s, we have .44 Russian, .44 Special, and of course, .44 Magnum.

In .45s, BACK IN THE DAY, they had .45 Webley (made specifically to operate in Webley Green and SAA (British contract revolvers) that were chambered in .45 Colt.  Unlike the .455 series of webley, adams and eley rounds, the .45 Webley was designed explicitly as a double duty round for use in the short chambered Webley-Green guns and the .45 Colt chambered SAA.  It fit and worked perfectly in any .45 Colt gun in existance.

The 45 Webley has been out of print since the late 1930s.  But in it's day, it was to the .45 Colt what the .44 Russian is to the .44 Special and .44 Remington Magnum, a short, less potent, but still respectible, and fully legitimate historical round.

Though not an exact copy, my C45S is a dead ringer in every dimension except length, and is extremely close in internal volume (slightly longer, but due to the use of modern, solid brass, inside it's almost perfectly the same).

I would respecfully suggest that the C45S as a replica of .45 Webley is at least as valid as the use of ANY .44 Russian round made today with the solid head brass, and probably closer to ballistically a dead ringer for the old rounds than the modern copies of many other chamberings, owing to the balloon head VS solid head brass.

Unless we're checking headstamps, yer never gonna know if a pard's "45 Webley" is legit (a rare and valuable find, as collectors pay $20-$50 EACH for the rounds, or if it's (shazaam), a close cousin. The same is true with .44 Russian.  How many folks are running "real" .44 russian in balloon head cases, and how many have whacked .44 specials?

[Dr. Bob]

Well, I have to agree with French Jack,  we have a pretty good idea where most of the folks that post here at CAS City feel about this cartridge.   Both sides have stated their position well! [And often. ]  Now we need to see what the Authenticity Committee recommends and then talk to our Rep's & Senators if they submit it for Congress to approve.

I'll stick with my 45 LC full of Holy Black or sub and grin a lot!

[Black River Smith]

Agreed Dr. Bob.

It is all opinion.

[French Jack]

As can be readily seen by a bit of research, there are many modern cartridges that were 'developed' simply by utilizing an existing case as a platform for a 'hotter' round made so by use of either smokeless powder or higher pressure constraints or both. 

I recommend that everyone debating whether to consider this or other similar cartridges read our by law regarding the approved calibers and loads:

 "Approved calibers and loads include any that were introduced from 1865 to 1899 and that were originally introduced as a black powder load.  Common examples include but are not limited to .22 rimfire, 32-20 WCF, 32 S&W Short, 32 S&W Long, 38-40 WCF. 44-40 WCF, 44 S&W American, 44 S&W Russian, 45 Long Colt, 45 S&W, 45-70 Govt.  Any Cartridge designation that was not originally introduced as a black powder load will not be allowed except for appropriate firearms in the smokeless cartridge division only, or for specifically designated shooting events.  38 Special/357 Magnum and 44 Special/44 Magnum cartridges will be allowed if loaded with black powder or with smokeless powder to black powder velocities."

Now anyone that hiccups at the 38 Spl, it is a round that according to S&W, was developed by them and chambered in the 38 Hand Ejector M&P, in 1899.  It was originally loaded with black powder, but was changed to smokeless within a year.  Most cartridge historians use the date of 1903, when it was introduced in the forerunner of the S&W model 10.  That is incorrect according to S&W.

If you read the by-law, the only currently used cartridges that are not updated pre 1899 cartridges are the 357 Magnum, the 44 Spl., and the 44 Magnum.  We know that these were approved due to necessity. These were given specific approval by the Congress.

If the C45S is found to be no more than a modernized pre 1899 cartridge, then approval is no big deal.  If it is determined to be a remodelled 45 Auto Rim, then it would require specific approval to be more than a round to be used in specifically designated shooting events ( Side matches ).

I am certain that the Authenticity Committee will carefully research and consider the request and make a recommendation accordingly. 

[Fox Creek Kid]

Excellent summary, Francois Jacques. 

[Adirondack Jack]

I had not read the rule before. Thank you.  The C45S is different both internally and externally than autorim, as mentioned above.   It could easily be argued that the C45S is simply a source of brass for those wishing to use .45 Webley, as the .45 Webley, ALWAYS a BP round, never loaded in smokeless, shares the same case dimensions except for a very slight variation in length, and if one considers the interior volume rather than exterior length, is a very near perfect replica owing to to solid case of the C45S, whereas .45 Webley was balloon head, so the slight difference in length makes up for that.  Since the .45 Webley was explicitly designed for use in Colt SAA arms for use by the British foreign service as an easement to the Webley-green contract, as well as in Webley-Green arms, it can further be argued that the use of such a round in any SAA or reasonable facimile, or any arm chambered in .45 Colt, would be possible then and now.  Would that a ship entering port in San Franciso, after a trading run to India, happened to have aboard a quantity of .45 Webley ammunition however acquired (do ya think the Brits controlled their ammo any better than the US Army, which "lost" it at a hellish rate to theft or other diversion to civilian use throughout the period?) I can well imagine such ammo would simply be considered and used as "short Colt", a reasonable description, and it has been argued that no less than Elmer Keith was referring to it when he makes the argument regarding the term "Long Colt".  EK says something about "Anybody who says the use of "Long Colt" is wrong never saw the Short rounds used in such quantities by the British  in (WWI)".  EK doubtless knew the .455 was a different case head, but the .45 Webley absolutely was a ringer for the Colt, save length, and as such might have been called "short Colt".  .45 WEB was produced both in Britain and in the US by WRA CO and Remington from the 1870s to 1930s.

Since no readily available .45 Webley brass exists, any shooter wishing to use the round would have to source a .45 Colt case head round of proper length, either by cutting and reaming .45 Colt (still has the wrong headstamp) or by simply substituting C45S.

I've said about all I can say on this.  I wish those wanting to use the round in NCOWS competition well, and would hope that this thread is preserved and presented to the folks that will need to decide.

I have submitted sample rounds to the judge.  


I thank the members of the committee for their consideration in advance.

<<Jack>>

[Irish Dave]

Well, I've held back on this to see where the discussion would lead. Overall, it's been informative, civil and certainly diverse.

French Jack has it exactly right when it comes to approval, however:

The round has been submitted to the Authenticity Committee. The Committee will study it and make its recommendation to the Congress. The Congress alone will ultimately decide whether this round should be approved or not. What it decides will become NCOWS policy and law.

***************
As for me personally, I have mixed feelings at the moment.
   *On the one hand, I'm fairly comfortable that the round probably is physically and ballistically similar to some of the "stubby" BP rounds of the period and there is merit in seeing it approved.
   *On the other hand, it is, for the most part, somewhat redundant; is primarily a modern creation; and could become a "slippery slope" if approved.

IMHO, the most critical issue here is one that NCOWS (like SASS or any outfit) would find hard if not impossible to measure, control or resolve -- and that would be the "intent" of the user.

If the shooter's purpose for using this round is to shoot the old Webleys or to recreate the ballistic performance of some of the period rounds, I would have little issue with it from a practical standpoint-- whatever it is called.
Unfortunately, the cartridge also carries the baggage, the potential (and perhaps even the original intent) of being an improved  platform for the "gamer crowd" to use for mousephart loadings -- teeny bullets and a whiff of powder imade possible by its smaller capacity case.
That is the primary problem. As is sadly so often the case in life, there always exists a few idiots who will abuse anything and therefore ruin it for everyone else.

For me it's the usage and the potential for abuse -- not the cartridge itself --that gives me pause.

[Dr. Bob]

So, if the C45S is not approved, can anyone just shorten a case with the 45 LC head stamp to the same length and be legal??

Can you load a "teeny bullet and whiff powder load" in a 45 LC or 45 Schofield and be NCOWS legal?? 

If someone gets Starline to make some cases a hair shorter and mark them 45 Webley will they be OK?  A true 19 Century original BP cartridge. 

Like I said earlier, I will stick with 45 LC full of Holy Black and a 250 gr. bullet.  But I don't see that the C45S is inherently evil, just because it can be loaded light.  Ten hundredths of an inch is not much different.  Until we are ready to randomly chronograph all ammo from every shooter and assure an agreed upon minimum velocity and require a minimum bullet weight, there is no way to insure that any size cartridge is/is not a "gamer" load.  I certainly don't want to go there!!

But the decision will still be up to the Congress!

[Steel Horse Bailey]

I agree with Irish Dave.

I do, however, believe Adirondak Jack when he says it was developed more as a viable way of making the 45 Colt a more efficient and safer (for handloaders) cartridge - NOT as a mousephart platform.  AJ can't be "blamed" if some (and it has been done) have used it for "pop-tink" loads made for speed by the dreaded "gamers" - which are NOT endorsed by us in NCOWS.  Being a "gamer" ISN'T a crime against God and Nature; there are venues for true speed competition already - and many true speed demons (someone who actually practices to be fast, rather than someone who simply uses "tricks" to gain an advantage over others) are pretty interesting to watch!  But not here with us.  Blaming the folks who invent things (made for one purpose, but used differently) is like blaming guns for crime.

IMO - yer mileage may vary.

Jeff  "Steel Horse Bailey"

[Black River Smith]

As a final comment:

From the By-Laws:
10-2.        Smokeless powder loads shall not exceed the maximum muzzle velocities of comparable black powder loads,e.g. 1500 fps for single shot cartridge rifles; 1300 fps for lever action rifles; 1000fps for handguns. Smokeless loads may be chronographed and certified by the Judge before the shooter will be allowed to compete. No loading below manufacture’s recommendation. Minimum velocity for any main match firearm is 600fps or published loading data.

While we don't check loads, in most instances, we could.

From the Safety Rules:
17.   No squib or magnum velocity loads.

Like I stated before, it is not always the casing but the Loading of such casings used.  This is the responsibility of the rule abiding member.....
If I want a 455 Colt (455 Enfield) I will cut my own to 0.87OAL or a Webley to 0.77OAL. But I won't, no desire to use such.


The Congress will decide but.... I agree with Irish Dave and I have tried to present this: it is a gray area or a fine line after what we just went through in our history.

Think hard and good luck on the voting.

[Ottawa Creek Bill]

What kinda idiotic logic is that.

LC

LC........Are you an NCOWS member??
AJ.................What caliber dies are used to load this round?

Bill

[Adirondack Jack]

I use a .45 Colt sizing die and expander, and a .45 ACP seat/crimp die.  (I use the Lee dies because they are inexpensive and work fine).  Others use a .45 Colt crimp die with a bit ground off the bottom.  Still others use a Hornady .45 Colt seat/crimp die (that one die does em all, long or short).  Like I said waaay up at the top, when we spec'd the cartridge I told Robert at Starline I wanted a .45 Colt with the unwanted middle removed so it was a more appropriate length for 777  in CAS, as well as capitalizing on the vaunted efficiency of JMB's smokeless .45 round  (and the ability to mine the data collected since day one with ACP), and that's just what it is.  The use of the ACP length mean off the shelf seat/crimp die and it meant KNOWN SAFE LOADS.  If I went with .45 Webley length, there is NO DATA for smokeless, and I could not afford pressure testing.  Keeping the project affordable, and minimizing the likelihood I would end up with a garage full of unsold brass were important.

  I'm not a wealthy guy, and frankly, we used our car fund to buy the headstamp die, drawing punches, and 50Kinitial order of brass needed to get this done, taking a huge risk that the wife's 12 yr old car would hang on another year and the brass would sell.

[Irish Dave]

Bob:

Let me address a couple of your questions/issues:

So, if the C45S is not approved, can anyone just shorten a case with the 45 LC head stamp to the same length and be legal??  I think the answer is clearly "no." Our approved calibers are listed. A cut-down .45 Colt is no longer a .45 Colt regardless of headstamp.

Can you load a "teeny bullet and whiff powder load" in a 45 LC or 45 Schofield and be NCOWS legal??  Well, to a point, yes. But that begs the other question:  "If someone's going to mousephart load a .45 Schofield, why do they need another, modern, even shorter cartridge?"

If someone gets Starline to make some cases a hair shorter and mark them 45 Webley will they be OK?  I'd say "yes" provided the Congress approves it.

But I don't see that the C45S is inherently evil, just because it can be loaded light.  Me either.

Ten hundredths of an inch is not much different.  Well, it's still a tenth of an inch.
... there is no way to insure that any size cartridge is/is not a "gamer" load.  True. But is that sufficient grounds to allow another, (albeit "safer,") modern, platform for this purpose?

**********

Steel Horse:

I do, however, believe Adirondak Jack when he says it was developed more as a viable way of making the 45 Colt a more efficient and safer (for handloaders) cartridge - NOT as a mousephart platform.  I believe him, too. That's not what I was getting at. I'm still not sure I understand what you were saying on this part "as a viable way of making the 45 Colt a more efficient and safer (for handloaders) cartridge."

AJ can't be "blamed" if some (and it has been done) have used it for "pop-tink" loads made for speed by the dreaded "gamers" - which are NOT endorsed by us in NCOWS. Agreed 100 percent. But I don't think anyone's blaming AJ for anything. He's created a new cartridge (not completely an historic one) and would like to see NCOWS approve it. I think discussion of how it might be (and has a reputation for being) abused by others is a reasonable discussion.    

Blaming the folks who invent things (made for one purpose, but used differently) is like blaming guns for crime. Again, Jeff, I don't see any blame here at all. If anyone has given Adirondack Jack that impression, my apologies to him on their behalf.

[Adirondack Jack]

Irish dave, I have a question.

Would .45 Webley, a BP round loaded from about 1876 until 1939 or so, (never commercially loaded in smokeless) be usable at an NCOWS match?

If not, why not?

if yes, then as with .44 Russian, a source of brass with a "wrong" headstamp on it, that was otherwise in keeping with the .45 webley ought to be ok?

if so, we're quibbling over about .050" in OUTSIDE length, and the same case capacity (owing to solid VS balloon head brass).

Odd, don't you think?



FWIW, if a fellow cuts .44 special to .44 russian length and gets em a little "off" in length, is he challenged or does anybody even notice?  if they do notice, do they care?

I think the resistance some voice to the C45S has more to do with the use some find for at as a "gamer" load in SASS (they also find .38 Long Colt and .44 Russian useful, but NCOWS allows these, even if headstamps are"wrong"?)

[Steel Horse Bailey]

Dave, you said:

"I believe him, too. That's not what I was getting at. I'm still not sure I understand what you were saying on this part "as a viable way of making the 45 Colt a more efficient and safer (for handloaders) cartridge."

I believe I "heard" him write during an earlier discussion on another post/board that by taking out some of the 'middle 45 Colt length' (or words to that effect) that reducing the large empty space - when loading with smokeless - would be safer (less chance of a double charge) and more efficient, by keeping the powder closer to the primer 'fire.'

Also, Dave:

"But I don't think anyone's blaming AJ for anything."  YOU aren't, but others obviously do.  Some immediately think, "Gamer."


That's my point.  It's how many PERCEIVE the item to be.  We live in a world of concessions.  NCOWS is trying to limit the non-historical items, but I guess my take on this is that as long as a round is used in an historical way, with the power levels in an authentic level of performance, I don't see the harm.  No harm - no foul.  I just don't want us to get so bogged down in the trees that we lose sight of the forest.  I'll wager that if Dick D or A Jack had shown up at an NCOWS match - and we ALL know they'd be WELCOMED - and shot normally loaded C45S "rounds" (which AREN'T poof-tink loads) that no one would notice ANYTHING, until a keen eyed brass "picker-upper" happened to see the headstamp!

(boiling it down) My AWA Longhorn isn't a Colt, but it looks ... and acts  like one.

[Irish Dave]

AJ:

Firstly, thanks for submitting your cartridge for examination and consideration by NCOWS. It is appreciated.
Secondly, thank you very much for contributing to this thread in a positive, intelligent and gentlemanly manner.

Now to your concerns:

Irish dave, I have a question.

Would .45 Webley, a BP round loaded from about 1876 until 1939 or so, (never commercially loaded in smokeless) be usable at an NCOWS match? My opinion would be "yes" as it was an authentic cartridge to the period.

if yes, then as with .44 Russian, a source of brass with a "wrong" headstamp on it, that was otherwise in keeping with the .45 webley ought to be ok? My opinion would be that if the cartridge was manufactured to the same specs as the Webley, it would be fine. But if it varied, then it would not be the same as the historic cartridge and would require submission/approval. I don't believe the bylaws that allow historic cartridges to be more-or-less automatically approved covers new rounds that are "close to" or "kinda like."

if so, we're quibbling over about .050" in OUTSIDE length, and the same case capacity (owing to solid VS balloon head brass).

Odd, don't you think? Odd, perhaps. But, AJ, I think the same would be true of any cartridge. I don't believe one can just design a new or modify an existing case, (even if they called it something historic) and expect to have it approved even though it isn't the same as any other cartridge of the era -- and especially if it isn't the same as the one it is intended to replicate.



FWIW, if a fellow cuts .44 special to .44 russian length and gets em a little "off" in length, is he challenged (probably not unless it becomes obvious) or does anybody even notice? (Perhaps not, hard to say) if they do notice, do they care? Well, if noticed and challenged a decision would need to be made as to whether the questioned cartridge was, in fact, legal. On the local level, folks would no doubt allow the shooter to continue for the day in any case. At the Regional/National level it could be a different story.

I think the resistance some voice to the C45S has more to do with the use some find for at as a "gamer" load in SASS (I'm sure that's true) (they also find .38 Long Colt and .44 Russian useful, but NCOWS allows these, even if headstamps are"wrong"?) To me, this really isn't about headstamp. Lots of obsolete firearms have been returned to useful lives by the modification of one cartridge into another. The .38-56 Winchester was one good example. Thankfully manufacturers are staring to recreate casings for many formerly obsolete cartridges and that is certainly a blessing. As to NCOWS permitting the .38 LC and the .44 Russian, the difference is that these were in fact historic "period" cartridges. The C45S is not, of course, a period headstamp, nor does it precisely recreate a period cartridge. Therein lies the "rub."

That's not to say that it will or won't be approved. That is up to the Congress which will no doubt take up this issue at its July session. It may be found to be "close enough" or it may not. Right now, I wouldn't bet either way.