Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
I’m looking at early 1900s lists of arms imported into Bolivia by private parties, gun dealers, and mining and rubber companies. I noticed that the “carabina Winchester 44” is almost invariably the Winchester imported. Rarely does a .30-30 appear on the lists. Why would this be? Is there some particular reason for the overwhelming popularity of the 44? A Bolivian colleague suggested the high altitude of the buyers, 8,000 to 13,000 feet (and thus lower air density), but that sounds rather speculative. Thoughts?
Offline
Daniel,
I believe that it was a simple case of economics.
The Model 1892 Carbines were considerably less expensive. Per the April 1900 Catalog No. 65, a Model 1892 Carbine cost $17.50, while the Model 1894 Carbine in 30 WCF cost $21.00.
Further, the cost of the ammo was significantly different. The cost per 1,000 rounds of 44 WCF was $19.00 for black powder, or $24.00 for smokeless powder. The cost per 1,000 for 30 WCF was $38.00 (double the cost of 44 WCF black powder).
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
And don’t overlook the fact that the .44 WCF cartridge was in reality a pistol cartridge that was used in a broad range of revolver in the early 1900s thus simplifying logistics.
WACA Life Benefactor Member
NRA Life Member
Thank you Messrs. Bert H. and Rick Hill. That makes eminent sense. BTW, the supposed Butch Cassidy Winchester Model 1892 up for auction discussed in a 2016 post here was part of a bogus collection of Cassidy and Sundance Kid personal effects from Bolivia that surfaced in US in the early 2000s. Long story, but the documentation was forged, crudely forged I might add.
Rick Hill said
And don’t overlook the fact that the .44 WCF cartridge was in reality a pistol cartridge that was used in a broad range of revolver in the early 1900s thus simplifying logistics.
Rick, I sort of disagree. It was a rifle cartridge that was safe to shoot in pistols. People have to remember that the 44 WCF was a big step from the Henry cartridge. Centerfire cartridges were in their infancy when Winchester came out with this. The 1876 resolved the issue.
November 7, 2015
Online
Chuck said
Rick Hill said
And don’t overlook the fact that the .44 WCF cartridge was in reality a pistol cartridge that was used in a broad range of revolver in the early 1900s thus simplifying logistics.
Rick, I sort of disagree. It was a rifle cartridge that was safe to shoot in pistols. People have to remember that the 44 WCF was a big step from the Henry cartridge. Centerfire cartridges were in their infancy when Winchester came out with this. The 1876 resolved the issue.
I agree, Chuck. The 44WCF is historically a rifle cartridge but in today’s world fits in better with handgun cartridges. The 44WCF was quite the powerhouse in its day.
Mike
Mike, I sort of agree. I have a few pistols and a few rifles that shoot the 44 WCF. But the first one to do it was the 1873 rifle.
Chuck said
Mike, I sort of agree. I have a few pistols and a few rifles that shoot the 44 WCF. But the first one to do it was the 1873 rifle.
I 100% agree with Rick. Colt adopted the 44 WCF cartridge in their own Model 1873 in the year 1878 so that people could use just one cartridge for their Winchester Model 1873 rifle and their Colt “hog-leg”.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Gents:
I agree that the .44 WCF was developed as a rifle cartridge by Winchester for use in the Model 1873 rifle/carbine but my comment “………. in reality a pistol cartridge that was used in a broad range of revolver in the early 1900s thus simplifying logistics” was meant to define its use in the early 1900s time frame when the .44 was a common Colt revolver cartridge also used in the Winchester 1873/1892 vs the more common Model 1894/1895 calibers.
WACA Life Benefactor Member
NRA Life Member
rogertherelic said
Also the 32-20 was considered a “rifle cartridge”, by many. RDB
It most certainly was. When you consider the fact that Winchester manufactured at least 500,000 rifles for it (in six different models, e.g. 1873, Single Shot, 1892, 53, 65, and the 43), I suspect that it is much more common as a “rifle” cartridge that it is a pistol cartridge.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Then came the High Velocity 32 and 44 cartridges. Not for revolvers or M1873’s. Big Larry
November 7, 2015
Online
I think it’s interesting how perceptions of rifles have changed over the last 140 years or so. Of course, the rifle cartridges have changed greatly. The rifles and carbines made in what we now consider pistol caliber cartridges were adequate for varmint and predator control, small (and sometimes larger) game and self defense. They were also much more effective in the hands of the average farmer, rancher or hunter than a revolver. Most of the cartridges found in the 1873 did indeed do well in revolvers but I’ll always think of them as rifle cartridges even though they don’t fit today’s definition. In my humble opinion the straight wall cartridges were (and still are) better suited to revolvers just as the tapered cases including the 44WCF were developed to feed and function in repeating rifles. I don’t necessarily disagree with Rick but my definition of a rifle cartridge has more to do with original design and intent than actual or perceived use.
Mike
1 Guest(s)
