It would seem to me that there would be a substantial cost savings if one purchased a replica in a caliber other than 56-50 simply because of the cost of the brass. Assuming that one buys a Taylor gun, they certainly are the most price attractive, is there any reason why a 44-40, say, wouldn't be the cheaper gun to shoot a lot.
Starline has 56-50 Taylor brass for $206/250. Their 44-40 brass is $55/250. So the appeal of the 44-40 would seem to be substantial.
My experience has been that straight walled rifle cases almost never wear out. I got 34 reloads per case, for example, out of my 45-90 brass and I know some who more than doubled that. I ONLY got 34 reloads per case because I finally stopped shooting that gun.
My experience with bottlenecked cases, however, is that half will fail, split at the neck ususally, at about 15 reloadings. 44-40 brass isn't know to be very stout so maybe it will not make it to 15 reloads, but... There was some talk years ago about Starline's 44-40 brass being stouter than other brands. Anyone know if that is true?
But given the possible much longer life expectancy of 56-50 brass compared to 44-40 brass, it still seems as if the 56-50 is going to be the more expensive option. Have I missed anything here?