Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Maverick,
I have one of these. Does anyone have any more info than what is in Ray or Dan’s books?
Other than seeing the occasional box or cartridge show up for sale. I haven’t seen them and don’t know of any other info on them than that in Ray / Dan’s books.
I’d have to dig through my catalog set to see where they’re mentioned there.
The only other info I know is that UMC also made these cartridges and so did the Connecticut Cartridge Company. You can see an example of the head stamps here. I’m sure possibly other companies made them also.
https://cartridgecollector.net/cartridge/45-82-405-winchester/
I don’t recall specifically anyone having ever found a correct original gun marking with this caliber stamp and that it is simply a loading variation. Just like with the 40-75-260 Ex, 45-85-300 Ex, and 45-85-350. But stranger things have happened. Never say never with Winchester.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
A friend of mine in Washington had a very high condition ’86 standard sporting rifle with the .45-82 WCF caliber marking. He also had the factory letter, listing it as a .45-82 in the ledgers.
There were two made, A friend has the other. It was 1/2 Octagon, NS barrel made in 1896 with Blued frame. As I remember the one Rick referred to was OB CB standard Rifle, I have letters for both–Bill
November 7, 2015
Offline
426crown said
There were two made, A friend has the other. It was 1/2 Octagon, NS barrel made in 1896 with Blued frame. As I remember the one Rick referred to was OB CB standard Rifle, I have letters for both–Bill
Only two made or at least two made? If there were only two made it’s pretty awesome that both are accounted for after over 125 years. Either way, pretty awesome specimens illustrating the confusing variations of BP cartridges.
Mike
Bill, You are right about the one in Washington. It also has a case colored receiver.
Here are a few loading records for the cartridge. Dan had a photo of the older ledger entry from the John Gardner days showing a loading on the top line. He suggested we scan it due to its rarity. These are the only four loading cards for it that I have from him. You can see that one of the cards was used in the Giles and Shuey book, if you have it. There’s one page about the cartridge in Dan’s Vol.II book, if you have that one.
Brad,
This is very interesting and a great piece of history. Missed you at the show again this year.
Brad Dunbar said
Here are a few loading records for the cartridge. Dan had a photo of the older ledger entry from the John Gardner days showing a loading on the top line. He suggested we scan it due to its rarity. These are the only four loading cards for it that I have from him. You can see that one of the cards was used in the Giles and Shuey book, if you have it. There’s one page about the cartridge in Dan’s Vol.II book, if you have that one.
Thanks for posting this. Did you see our posts on the EX cartridges? Do you have any more info on these, especially the bullets?
Also found this copy of a drawing that Dan had. Haven’t taken much time to look for EX stuff yet.
Brad Dunbar said
Also found this copy of a drawing that Dan had. Haven’t taken much time to look for EX stuff yet.
Well get busy!!
Seriously, anything that you might find in your treasure trove of information is of great interest to those of us that actively collect these odd balls cartridges.
Thanks for posting it 
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I recall reading something, years ago, in reference to firing the 45-82 out of rifles made for the 45-90. The 45-90 utilized a rifling twist that did not do well with the 405 grain bullet of the 45-82.
GMC(SW) - USN Retired 1978 - 2001
Did some more digging and the only other information I’ve come across so far is a chamber drawing for the 45-90 listing the 45-85-350, 45-85-300 and 45-82-405 as all having the same chamber.
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
Very cool stuff. What do you think the SP stands for in Brad’s example? Lead, FP maybe flat point but what is SP?
Online
Chuck said
Very cool stuff. What do you think the SP stands for in Brad’s example? Lead, FP maybe flat point but what is SP?
Soft point.
Could be but most magazine fed ammo was flat point. But some had larger flat spots. Maybe it was jacketed soft points? I have some early 45-70’s like this.
Chuck said
Very cool stuff. What do you think the SP stands for in Brad’s example? Lead, FP maybe flat point but what is SP?
On other such factory drawings I’ve seen the following.
LEAD = Lead
F.P. = Full Patch
S.P. = Soft Point
S.P.H.P.= Soft Point Hollow Point
M.P.= Metal Patch
I don’t believe Winchester started to used terms like Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) until years later.
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
Roundsworth said
I recall reading something, years ago, in reference to firing the 45-82 out of rifles made for the 45-90. The 45-90 utilized a rifling twist that did not do well with the 405 grain bullet of the 45-82.
I was re reading this post and remembered that I have some of these cartridges. I have 6 head stamped 45-82 and c c c. Most likely reloads, but they will chamber in my 45-90’s.
They should. The brass is the same as a 45-90. Just a different bullet. Just like a 45-70, although shorter brass, will chamber and shoot but the twist rate may be wrong for the bullet weight. CCC stands for Connecticut Cartridge Co. or even Clinton Cartridge Co.? The Conn company loaded modern ammo.
Chuck said
They should. The brass is the same as a 45-90. Just a different bullet. Just like a 45-70, although shorter brass, will chamber and shoot but the twist rate may be wrong for the bullet weight. CCC stands for Connecticut Cartridge Co. or even Clinton Cartridge Co.? The Conn company loaded modern ammo.
Thanks Chuck for info, I knew they were very close to 45-90 by comparing them together. I figured they were newer cases by the condition, just didn’t know who CCC was. Guess they will be ok to shoot then.
1 Guest(s)
