Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Specifically, the .45-90. Maybe this has been discussed here before? I don’t recall seeing any discussion of it, but it’s been on my mind for over 30 years. I have three glimpses. The first, over 30 years ago, in the large Madis book (p. 241 in my copy), he references in his section on the Model 1876:
“In 1878 45-90 cartridges with 450 grain bullets were offered but discontinued with a few months.”
I don’t think he is referring to the .45-90 that was introduced in 1886. Not only way too early, but it seems the reason for the .45/75 cartridge was that they couldn’t fit the .45-70 into the ’76 action. So, how the longer .45-90 cartridge could have been chambered seems very implausible. When I first pondered this, I speculated it was based upon the .45/75 case. But how could they have fit 90 grains of powder in that case, along with a bullet that weighed 100 grains more than the standard 350 grain load? I recall at the time, discussing this with another collector and he suggested perhaps they came out with the cartridge with the idea that because it was longer, it would be single loaded. Ok, some plausibility there. Recall Madis states the cartridges, “… were offered but discontinued within a few months.” Does anyone have one in their cartridge collection?
Madis makes no reference to rifles being thus chambered or marked. Moving on, Arthur Pirkle, in his book that covers the Model 1876, list the .45-90 (p.189) among the chamberings. He also states, “Non-existant to extremely rare” and specifies a powder charge of 90 grains of powder and a 450 grain bullet. Also, on page 148, he references, “.45-90” as, “possibly” a barrel marking.
Finally, several years ago, a fellow collector (now deceased) referenced a special Model 1876 he had. We only talked about it once and I just can’t pull the full details up from my memory. I never saw the rifle, but I recall he said there was nothing special to see (I don’t know if he ever took the forearm off). I recall it was a .45-75 but I recall he said there was nothing noteworthy about any caliber markings (if there were any). But what caught his attention was when he obtained a museum letter. I wish my memory were clearer on this point. The letter made some reference to the chambering. I don’t think it specified .45-90 as I surely think that would make for a long-lasting vivid memory for me. My best recollection is it may have stated, .45-75, “High Velocity.” And of course, what would that mean? And why would one rifle be described thusly?
I’m still thinking about M1876 chamberings. Madis states on page 55 of his handbook:
“In going over the serial records now in the great Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, Wyoming, we find some interesting facts. A number of early 45-75 caliber guns were returned to be rechambered to other calibers.”
What can this mean? One could not simply rechamber the .45-75 to any other standard chambering. The case dimensions are too large to become a .45-60 and to become a .50-95, the rifle would have to be rebored as well. Of course, it could be rechambered to a .45-60 if the barrel were set back – but that would involve work with the forend, forend dovetail, cetc. They would do all that rather than just put a new barrel on?
On the other hand, reportedly the serial records state returned and rechambered to other calibers. I am fascinating as to what this may mean. Simple – they were rechambered to .45-90 
Folks,
I would reference my display at Cody this year. Included was a .45-90-500 cartridge. They are scarce but not unheard of. Similarly there are the .45-90-450 cartridges. What makes them hard to find is they are not headstamped. The brass is the same as the .45-75. The difference in critical measurements is the length of the bullet (a paper patched bullet) which means it had to be single loaded, being too long to feed from the magazine. If the person failed to fire this special, long range target cartridge, I would guess they had to carefully open the bolt without causing the lifter to come up, and try to tease the cartridge out with a small article like a screwdriver or pocket knife. There was at least one rifle specifically cited as being chambered for this particular cartridge, and should be out there somewhere. In depth questions about the cartridges and such could benefit from answers by Mr. Giles and Mr. Shuey!
Additionally, there is discussion of 1876’s being rechambered for other calibers in Houze’s book on the 1876, with many originally chambered for the .40-60 being re chambered/re barreled or whatever, to other calibers. Some 50 Express were also re done to fill orders. While the narrative talks of “rechambering” I am fully confident that meant replacing barrels and lifters being marked or replaced, etc. I strongly suspect it was not as simple as using a new chamber reamer on an existing barrel.
Tim
Folks,
Some additional details on changing caliber for the 1876 model. I have a saddle ring carbine whose factory letter reads as follows:
Carbine
40/60 caliber
Received in warehouse on February 26, 1886.
Shipped from warehouse on February 26, 1886, order number 3829
Returned by ECMA Company
December 28, 1895 changed to carbine, 45/75 caliber.
Reshipped on December 30, 1895, order number 3080.
Note there is no use of “rechambered” as a term, rather just “changed to…” This was a rather frequent occurrence per Houze with those chambered originally in 40-60 (with frequent being a relative term by me). As people, we tend to use words and concepts that for others may mislead. I suspect the use of “rechambered” is one of those.
Tim
With regard to the .45-90 cartridge, I wonder how well it would chamber in a standard .45-75 rifle (e.g. can you get the bolt closed)? I do understand how ejecting an unfired cartridge could prove difficult. Not terribly surprising they withdrew if from the market.
On the topic of chamberings for the M1876, we know they wanted to chamber the .45-70 but couldn’t get past the length of the .45-70. Granted, the action of the M1876 is very very long and making it yet longer was a concern. However, when you look at the total overall length of the standard M1876 rifle with the 28 inch barrel does adding slightly over a quarter inch matter that much? Or how about this, add a quarter inch to the action, chamber it in the .45-70 and reduce the barrel length to 27 inches. You would end up with a shorter rifle and chambered in the desired chambering. 
It is very satisfying to get so many answers on a topic that has been a question in my mind for decades. Thank you to those who provided information. It has truly been illuminating.
steve004,
The 45-90-500 or 45-90-450 chambers up just fine in the 45-75 rifles. The lead bullet, being smaller in diameter and paper patched, goes into the bore of the barrel. The brass case is the same between the various caliber designations. Since the lead bullet is smaller in diameter (to fit on top of the lands) the paper patching then fills the grooves and provides the bite to impart the spin of the rifling. The paper patching goes only part way up the lead bullet, by the way. The one question I have in my mind, with no real means as yet to answer, is the accuracy question due to the twist rate of the 45-75 – is it fast enough to stabilize the longer bullet? The one rifle that was known to be “chambered” for the 45-90-450 or 500 cartridge, and so noted apparently on the barrel (?), may have the answer if the twist rate on it is quicker than on the run of the mill 45-75’s, should that unique specimen ever come to light.
By the way, the lead bullet in the specimen in my display is seated out in the neck of the brass, I think. That is to make room for the additional powder? If you have the 1876 book by Herb Houze, he has a drawing of the cartridge in question, which can give you some idea of the situation. You may also derive some information about the changing of calibers in this model from his discourse. That is especially covered in the chapter on the 40-60 rifles. Let me know, and if you think it would help I can post the measurements I derived to compare the WRA Co 45-75 factory round with the specimen 45-90-500. To me, the real tale was in the over all weights, if we can assume the factory 45-75 had 75 grains of black powder. I did not nor intend to destruct any of the cartridges to get direct measures of the amounts of powder, nor bullet! There are too few of the special single loading cartridges and they are too expensive to ruin one!
Tim
November 7, 2015
Offline
I’ve come to share the opinions of some wiser folks that it’s probably just as well the 1876 couldn’t easily chamber the 45-70 and longer cartridges. A steady diet of 45-70’s would likely exceed the limitations of the toggle action and receiver in time. OTOH I’ve read that the “weak” toggle action is actually much stronger than most folks believe. One problem with the “weak action” theory is that the 45-75 and 50-95 are arguably almost as powerful but they generally used lighter bullets and the case head was a bit bigger so pressures were somewhat lower, I just don’t know how much lower. Or maybe Winchester was content to chamber the 1876 in proprietary cartridges, that’s as good a reason as any. Those oddball WCF cartridges certainly make the 1876 interesting.
steve004 and others,
I can see where this may be headed so will provide the comparison measurements right now from a WRA Co. 45-75 and the specimen 45-90-500 I have.
WRA Co 45-75 Single loading 45-90
Brass length 1.889″ 1.887″
COAL 2.277″ 3.044″
Bullet dia just ahead of brass .453″ .4535 (includes paper patch)
Weight of cartridge 585.0 grains 747.1 grains. Difference is 162.1 grains. That is divided up between about an additional 15 grains of powder, approximately 150 grains more of bullet. Obvious there is some slight difference with expectation there. Was the brass the same thickness and weight? Who knows. Quite possible they are a little shy on the amount of black powder, even if it is considered “90 grains”.
Hope this clears some air out there.
1 Guest(s)
