Nomenclature of old black powder rounds.

[mrcvs]

I recently loaded 10 .32-40 rounds, and it did indeed take 40 grains of FFg black powder. I know that this is the amount of powder that the old cases took, and, indeed, it is what fit in this case, although there are variations due to the cases produced today, based on the round loaded. (For example, I loaded some .50-70 Government rounds last year, and found that 68 grains worked better than 70 grains). I know, of course, the nomenclature for .32-40 arose from the fact the round takes 40 grains of powder and a .32 diameter bullet (actually .321). More modern rounds, such as .270 Winchester, were named as such, because they arose after the blackpowder era and the grains of blackpowder were not important (but, of course, one could shoot blackpowder in more modern rifles to no ill effect -- has anyone out there experimented with shooting blackpowder using more modern rounds, such as .270?).

However, my real question is, as follows: As outlined above why modern rounds are as they are, and why some blackpowder rounds are named as they are, why are not all blackpowder rounds named as such? For example, .45 Colt was definitely developed as a blackpowder cartridge and research reveals that modern rounds take somewhere between 30 and 40 grains of blackpowder, and the old rounds likely would have taken about the same amount of powder. So, why is the .45 Colt, .41 Long Colt, etc., known as such, instead of, for example, the .45 Colt as .45-40, or other similar nomenclature?

[JSnover]

I don't think there was a standardized nomenclature. You could pretty much call it whatever you want.
A lot of modern smokeless cartridges have been loaded with black, but bottleneck cases can cause problems.

[Don McDowell]

A lot of the xx-xx nomenclature came from one company (we'll use Marlin here) did not want to put 30 wcf on their barrels , so they called it the 30-30. They did the same thing with the 45-90 (Marlin was 45-85) So there's no one simple answer other than most company's preferred to call the cartridge by their own name but if it became real popular and if other companies wanted to use it they renamed it.

[.22-10-45]

Actually the Sharps Rifle Co. thought the amount of black powder was not as important as the actual length of case their rifles were chambered for. For example, the common .45-70 was refered by Sharps as the .45-2.1. The .40-70 straight as .40 2 1/2". The rifles were stamped with this information..which makes alot more practicle sense to a handloader if you think about it.

[bigted]

we should remember that in the space of merely 50 or 60 years we went from muzzleloaders to auto loading firearms. during this time we as a nation and indeed the world had very little communication with each other. no net nor TV or Radio to advise others of a new round or way to describe it. the advances seem like just the path of new advancement to us BUT ... to the folks that were DOING the developments ... it WAS rocket science. sooooo the way to describe stuff in the firearms development didnt settle down for all to get on board with till the early 1900's.

now we all play catchup with what the different manufacturers called the same cartridges and the new ones at the time.

WHEWW just about cornfused myself with all that ... i gotta go take a nap now!!!

[Huvius]

And you don't even want to begin trying to explain the nomenclature of the British rounds...

Even within the same maker, take Jeffery, they used differing methods of naming their cartridges.
Start with the 450/400 Jeffery. Easy, 450 case necked to take a .408" bullet with a rifle bore of .400". Make it a Jeff special by reducing length to 3" vs. 3-1/4" and give it a thicker rim.
Now, take the 500/450 No.2 Jeffery. All to plan - .450" bore, a .458" bullet in a .500 thick rimmed case.
Then, the .475 No.2 Jeffery with the same case but now a .488" bullet for Jeffery rifles and something like .483" for rifles from other makers. Who knows why...

Now, to the rimless Jeffery cases.
404 Jeffery has a .423" bullet and a bore of about .410". Some say the name came from the gun being a "40cal, 4 shot rifle"
The .500 Jeffery has a .500" bore and a .510" bullet (while the .505 Gibbs has a .505" bullet)
The .333 Jeffery actually has a bullet of .333" so doesn't follow any standard of naming which Jeffery had used before.

[mrcvs]

I don't think there was a standardized nomenclature. You could pretty much call it whatever you want.
A lot of modern smokeless cartridges have been loaded with black, but bottleneck cases can cause problems.

I am curious as to why bottleneck cases, such as the .270 Winchester would cause problems? I mean, indeed, most early blackpowder rounds did not contain a bottleneck, but several did, as well. For example, the .40-82 Winchester was an old blackpowder round, and it contains a bottleneck as well.

[Don McDowell]

It's not the bottle neck that cause problems its the small bore size, and rifling twist that will bugger up with blackpowder fouling.

[JSnover]

The conventional wisdom is often wrong, but my understanding was if the bore is too small relative to the case body, it acts like a restriction (more so than with smokeless, apparently). There were quite a few small bore BP cartridges back in the day and there were also a number of bottle-necked and tapered BP cartridges, but they appear to have less of a shoulder than most of the smokeless cartridges, as if there may have been a threshold they couldn't safely cross.
The rifling twist issue is legit, as far as velocities go. Often the new jacketed bullets wouldn't stabilize in a bore rifled for BP velocities.

[.22-10-45]

"most early blackpowder rounds did not contain a bottleneck". Not quite true. Alot of the early Sharps cases were bottlenecked..the .40-50 2 11/16"B.N. came out before the .40-50 2 9/16" straight. ...likewise the .40-70 2 1/4" B.N. preceded the .40-70 2 1/2" straight. All the various Sharps .44's were bottlenecked..and all the .45's were straight. The thinking is that a B.N. prevented compresssing the powder charge as completly as a straight case allows. Although when I had my Lone Star rolling block long-range built, I had it chambered in the .40-70 B.N. Dave Higgenbotham was surprised at the lack of fouling buildup in the throat... contrary to popular opinion.

[bob208]

it can get even more interesting when going from one company to another. .40-60 win. is not the same as .40-60 marlin.

[Gunlaker]

And don't forget the real oddballs like the .56-56 Spencer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.56-56_Spencer

Chris.

[John Boy]

Just be thankful old US firearms were marked with the caliber & powder charge, including the brass headstamps. How would you like to determine the cartridge with just this marking ...
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd220/Meadowmucker/Martini%20Schuetzen%20Rifle/IMGP1491.jpg

It is on an old German Schuetzen rifle I bought. After a chamber cast and a lot of help from a collector of German bullets, was determined to be a 9.5x47R. The caliber was invented in 1887 and lasted less than 20 years.
Found 80 cases in the US and had a custom mold made of the original bullet dimensions. Lot of investigation and work but the rifle is fully engraved and shoots good groups out to 300yds

[Yellowhouse]

"most early blackpowder rounds did not contain a bottleneck". Not quite true. Alot of the early Sharps cases were bottlenecked..the .40-50 2 11/16"B.N. came out before the .40-50 2 9/16" straight. ...likewise the .40-70 2 1/4" B.N. preceded the .40-70 2 1/2" straight. All the various Sharps .44's were bottlenecked..and all the .45's were straight. The thinking is that a B.N. prevented compresssing the powder charge as completly as a straight case allows. Although when I had my Lone Star rolling block long-range built, I had it chambered in the .40-70 B.N. Dave Higgenbotham was surprised at the lack of fouling buildup in the throat... contrary to popular opinion.

Back when most of that modern opinion was written about the only powder available was mostly 80's goex.

[Don McDowell]

Back when most of that modern opinion was written about the only powder available was mostly 80's goex.

That's part true, even tho C&H was still available and imported and relable by Hogdons... It still blows right past what actually happened and was left in the records for all the world to see in the recordings of the NRA annual meeting (which in the early days was not a trade fair mixed with a bunch of political speeches, it was a shooting match with attendees from around the world)