Question about the new Spencer 45LC carbine...

[66illinois]

Has anyone tried/used the new 45LC caliber Spencer carbine on the reenacting battlefield? How do you like it?

Does the piece have to "adapted" to fire the 45LC crimped brass blanks?

Thank You,

George A.
Shreveport, LA

[major]

George
From what I have been able to see the 45LC Spencer would not make a good reenacting gun. You would be better off with the one in 44-40. Here is an article explaining how to make it work with cheap blanks. http://www.9thnycavalry.webeditor.com/spencer_article.html
You could use the 5 in 1 blanks but that gets expensive when you are going to fire over 200 in a weekend. The blanks made from 410 hulls work great and are a lot cheaper then the 5 in 1. You could also go to the Spencer Shooting Society board to get more info. http://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php?board=35.0

[Artyman]

Terry,

I'm about to buy a Spencer myself. I was interested in the 45LC too, since I load so many 45 LC's for my other firearms. From a live fire perspective it makes sense. What makes it difficult for blanks? Just curious before I make a mistake.

Harry

[harley_davis]

I do not have experience with the .45 Colt vs .44WCF in the Spencer, however, I do have experience with blanks in Henry's, 66 & 73 Winchesters. IMHO the biggest difficulty is the rim width on the .45 compared to .44. The rim is much smaller on the .45 casing when compared to the .44 making it harder for the extractor to pull the spent casing. These weapons were never designed to use the .45 case originally and function better with the larger rim width. Also, the .44 is a bottleneck casing vs the straight wall of the .45 which means there is less casing surface to contact the chamber wall upon extraction. Additionally, the tapered case of the .44 facilitates feeding into the chamber when compared to the straight case of the .45 round. The Spencer action itself may cause additional difficulties with the .45 but others on this forum may be able to speak with more authority on the specifics with the action. I never liked the 5 -1 plastic blanks since they use flash powder which is very corrosive in your weapon if left unattended for even a very short period of time. This fellow offers a 5 -1 blank made of brass using black powder and I have used them with good results.
http://www.gunblanks.com/ammo.html
Regards,

[Blair]

Harry,

The Spencer (whether original or repro) along with the Henry is very sensitive to the overall finished length of the cartridge. (Makes no difference what the caliber is.)
You remove the bullet from a .45 Colt and you have effectively shortened the overall finished length by about 3/8th of an inch.
To get your blank rounds to work in that gun, you have to find a way to make up for the difference in overall finished cartridge length.
I would suggest you go with a .45 Schofield and make your blanks from .45 Colt. Better yet make you blanks from .454 Casull cases which are like a Magnum case for a .45 Colt.
Blair Taylor

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Just an aside...

The straight walled .45 LC appears to be "dirtier" than the bottle-necked .44
allowing more "blow back" into the inner works.

CHS

[Cpt Boone]

You may also want to contact Joe Swanson for blanks.

http://www.joeswansonsmotionpictureblanks.com/

He made M1 Carbine blanks that had necked down casing where the round should be. May want to see what he can do.

[major]

Terry,

I'm about to buy a Spencer myself. I was interested in the 45LC too, since I load so many 45 LC's for my other firearms. From a live fire perspective it makes sense. What makes it difficult for blanks? Just curious before I make a mistake.

Harry
Harry
A lot of the reasons for using a Spencer in 44-40 has to do with $$$$. The cost of a good 5 in 1 blank round is over 50 cents each. And when you are firing 200 to 300 in a weekend that really adds up quick. I have found a way to make blanks for the Spencer in 44-40 for about 17 cents each using cut down 410 shotgun hulls. It requires an initial outlay of money for the tools but they would pay for themselves many times over in a short time. I have been using them in my 44-40 Spencer for the last 2 years and they work almost flawlessly. Also I get 0 blow back into the chamber from them which means that my action stays very clean. Here is a link to the article I wrote about how to make the blanks for use in a 44-40 Spencer. http://www.9thnycavalry.webeditor.com/spencer_article.html
As far as live shooting is concerned the 44-40 has always been a more accurate cartridge than the 45. I shoot N-SSA and almost everyone in N-SSA is shooting 44-40s in their Henrys.

[Artyman]

Please excuse my Neanderthal Mind for not comprehending the subtilities of this concept, but wouldn't a Spencer Repro made for use of 45LC already have all these issues handled?

Harry

[major]

Harry
I am not sure I fully understand you question, but IMHO the 45LC Spencer was made for the Cowboy Action Shooters. They can use modern powder and shoot very short distances in their matches. With N-SSA and reenacting we use black powder which is very dirty and in N-SSA we shoot 50 and 100 yards. Some of the problems with the Spencer in 45 can be overcome with the use of smokeless powder. But in reenacting at least, we need the smoke that is produced with black powder.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

As Herr Terry has shared, the repro M1865 Spencer carbine was originally marketed "to" or "for" the Cowboy Action Shooting community.
At that time CAS/SASS was enjoying a phenomenal growth spurt in multiples of tens of thousands so as I understand it, the Italians went to common "CAS" calibres of .45 (Schofield) and .44 S & W "Russian" with a promise (at that time) of maybe offering a .56/50 for the reenacting community.
(Plus the issue of center fire versus rimfire due to the lack of rimfire cartridge or brass availability. Or the lack of balloon head copper cartridges for a finer point.)

So, basically, the problems of cycling, BP firing, or blank-firing were not so much an issue rather than the conscious choice to offer Henry's and M1866, M1873 Winchesters in .45 Long Colt for smokeless or later "cowboy equivalent smokeless."
(Plus the issue of center fire versus rimfire due to the lack of rimfire cartridge or brass availability. Or the lack of balloon head copper cartridges for a finer point.)

CHS

[Artyman]

I guess what I meant was, if a reputable company markets a weapon for a particular bullet, then would they not chamber it and set up the ammo feed and extractor to work with the caliber it's supposed to use?

And thus, couldn't a proper blank, whether BP or not also be possible? Example: 45-70 trap door repros are easy to make blanks for with BP loads.

Don't get me wrong, I really like 44/40's, but it would be just as easy for me to use the 56/50 since I would need to get the dies in either case.

From a dollar stand point those 410's do make sense. I was told that Spencer experimented with cardboard/metallic base cartridges like a 410. I only ever saw one example, the one Mike Yeck had. At least one could squint and turn his head sideways and rationalize a 410 as "period correct"!

Are you following all this George A.? I don't want to hijack your thread!

Harry

[major]

Harry
As far as I know the 45LC Spencer works find with 45LC ammo. But it will not cycle the 45LC brass without a bullet in the end. This is because the Spencer is very particular as to the length of its cartridge. We as reenactors are asking it to do something it was never designed to do. In a 45-70 trap door you are only loading one at a time and since it is not going through a cycling system length isn’t an issue.
The same money problem goes for the Spencer in 56-50. You can use the plastic blanks sold by S & S but here you have that pesky money problem again. The plastic blanks cost about 50 cents each plus powder and primer. The good news is that they are reusable and the bad news is that you have to stop and pick them up during the battle. If you go with the Spencer in 44-40 the blanks are cheap, they cycle fine and you don’t have to stop to pick them up until after the battle is over. And even then most of my hulls get scoffed up from the kid spectators and I don’t have to do anything. What more could you want from a reenacting repeater?

[Artyman]

Now that was a good answer! Sounds like 44/40 does the job!

Harry

[GrumpyDave]

When was the .45LC cartridge first manufactured? Was it first manufactured as a rim-fire or center-fire?

[Blair]

Grumpy Dave,
Designed for the Colt model 1873 Singal Action Army (SAA) Revolver and was "Internally primed" center fire cartridge.
Blair Taylor

[Blair]

.44 Winchester Center Fire (WCF), aka as the .44-40 (44 cal bullet with 40 grains of black powder) Designed by Winchester for the Model 1873 Rifle, originally an internally primed center fire cartridge.
Blair Taylor

[harley_davis]

Hate to be technical but .45 "Long" Colt cartridge terminology was not an manufacturer designation. The .45 Colt cartridge was introduced along with the M-1873 Colt Single Action Army revolver in 1873 as a centerfire cartridge. Smith & Wesson, when asked by the Army for a .45 caliber revolver, developed the .45 S&W (called the .45 Schofield today, again, not historically correct name) based on their current Model No. 3 "Russian" revolver and was a tad shorter than the .45 Colt cartridge. S&W held the opinion that the .44 caliber was superior to the .45 and did not wish to retool their cylinder length to accept the longer Colt cartridge, instead , developed their own caliber of .45 S&W. In theory then, the Army would only have to issue one .45 caliber round. The fact that the Colt cartridge began to be called the Long Colt indicates there were some potential mixups although I do not know if there we any instances of this actually occuring in the field. There is more to be said about this subject but it would be inappropriate to hijack this thread.


When was the .45LC cartridge first manufactured? Was it first manufactured as a rim-fire or center-fire?

Regards,

[Artyman]

The distinction came after the .45 ACP rounds came out. You are right about the original designation not being Long Colt. Since Colt manufactured the .45 ACP it was natural that folks could confuse the two .45 Colt sizes.....at least that's what Drill Sargeant Mons told me in 1970.

Harry

[major]

Harry
Sent you an e-mail did you get it?
Terry

[Artyman]

Yes, I'm a bit behind right now! I'll reply tomorrow!

Harry