THE ACCURATERELOADING.COM SPORTERIZED MILITARY RIFLE FORUM


Moderators: jeffeosso
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
45 Long Colt SMLE
 Login/Join
 
One of Us
Picture of yumastepside
posted
At the moment I'm lying here in a hospital bed ( foot infection, out tomorrow ) bored out of my noggin, dreaming up all sorts of weird and wonderful things to do when I get out and the thought came to me........has anyone ever put a 45 long colt into a Smellie?
I know some have been done in 45-70, but for most things down here, thats a bit of overkill.Some years back I had a Smith and Wesson in 45 LC as a metallic silhouette pistol and loved it.
Any thoughts ?

Roger
 
Posts: 1031 | Location: Was NSW, now Tas Australia | Registered: 27 June 2009Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
A awfully short round for the action.


With enough time, skill or money most any thing can be done.

A sure if it can be done but the time effort and money would make it prohibitive for me.
 
Posts: 19313 | Location: wis | Registered: 21 April 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Seems like a 38-55 would fit with less work, just my uneducated amateur opinion. Still a nostalgic, mild cartridge that can be loaded down or up depending on the intended use.

As stated, enough time and money and anything can be done.


"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind..."
Hosea 8:7
 
Posts: 579 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 January 2015Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
During WWII the brits chambered them in 45 ACP for special ops use. I think it was called a Delise carbine.
 
Posts: 367 | Location: South east Georgia | Registered: 16 September 2005Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of dpcd
posted Hide Post
I have done SMLEs with all manner of cartridges, many of them with a one piece stock, as the Lee design was built until the British got it.
Saw off the butt socket.
Actually I am doing one now in 44 mag, only because I got a cheap take off Ruger barrel. Have to sleeve it onto the threads but that ain't hard.
I am using an M1 Carbine magazine. I have done #1s and #4s in 45-70, 444 Marlin, 40-65, 38-56, and now 44 mag. Don't try to make the original mag feed pistol ammo. Use a smaller mag and make a block to fit it into.
The DeLisle carbine was suppressed; that big barrel shroud is one huge suppressor/silencer.
 
Posts: 17045 | Location: USA | Registered: 02 August 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of eagle27
posted Hide Post
I made quite a few into 410 shotguns which of course will shoot the 45 LC not that I ever tried the LC in one. The SMLE was popular for conversion to net guns for live capture of deer by stubbing off the barrel and welding on three short lengths of pipe flared out so a fishing net can be packed in the centre. A lead weight was inserted in each pipe and attached to the net with lines. Packing tape held the net and the lead weights in place. A blank 303 cartridge fired the net out over a deer from a chopper. Very successful but the recoil was murder on the wrists of the shooters using the gun cut off to the wrist grip. Usually had a few net packs made up that just screwed onto the receiver.
 
Posts: 3826 | Location: Nelson, New Zealand | Registered: 03 August 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of dpcd
posted Hide Post
I'm pretty sure that the netting of deer in this state is not legal, either from a helicopter or from the ground.
 
Posts: 17045 | Location: USA | Registered: 02 August 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by dpcd:
I'm pretty sure that the netting of deer in this state is not legal, either from a helicopter or from the ground.

TPWD can do it, but I remember a couple of decades back the Director of the wildlife division got himself fired when he was caught netting pronghorns from a helicopter. ...several miles into New Mexico.


"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind..."
Hosea 8:7
 
Posts: 579 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 January 2015Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of eagle27
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by dpcd:
I'm pretty sure that the netting of deer in this state is not legal, either from a helicopter or from the ground.


Probably not but maybe you could use them down on the Mexican border instead of building the wall Big Grin

There's a net gun mounted on the pilots side skid in this old image that could be remote fired by the pilot . Chopper pilot could carry on and net another deer after his shooter had netted one and had jumped out to rodeo and hog tie the netted animal.
 
Posts: 3826 | Location: Nelson, New Zealand | Registered: 03 August 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Hello Roger. As others may not know Australian shooters have done various .303 wildcats over the years. The .303/25 being maybe the best known. Tat popular enough in fact to be commercially loaded by Dominion (aka C.I.L.) in Canada.

I had a SMLE .303/25 maybe thrity plus yearsago.

The problem you have is that the ejector stud is in the wrong place. Sure the bolt will extract the fired case but it is a long way back, then, to the actual ejector stud!

The problem was solved on the Delisle carbine by making a benefit of the SMLE having rear locking lugs. For other than running along the receiver rail and gripping the fired case to extract it the bolt head doesn't do much.

So the designers of the Delisle removed the first inch or so of the front part of the bolt, re-tapped it, and screwed the bolt head that inch or whatever back. They then used a barrel that extended back into the receiver to take up that now missing inch (or so) lost from the bolt. Look at the magazine position on true, genuine Delisle carbines. So the (now shorter) full stroke of the bolt now equals the now shorter length of the new .45 ACP chambering.

Note the magazine position on the "faux Delisle" modern, lazy, interpretations where it is further forward. Because they maker hasn't understood why the Delisle designers used the solution they did. Simply the authentic Delisle is the better method. Just as...see below...it's done on the Enfield No8.

So that is how it is best done. Or is it?

To my mind it is now, with modern powders, best done by a new barrel, sleeved in, into the existing stub barrel of the original .303, in .444 Marlin and using Trail Boss. So sleeving as you would with a shotgun sleeving. Rather than a complete replacement new "made as .410" or re-bored barrel to .410" as in effect how the ordnance men made the Indian Police issue .410 Musket. But instead of using a .410" smoothbore barrel using the sleeving method to get a .429" rifled barrel

You maintain the original bolt so eliminating cutting and retapping, you maintain (as does the Delisle) the original ejector stud, you retain the original magazine with minimal alteration.

You also get IMHO a better factory cartridge, .444 Marlin, for the project. With a bullet range similar to that of the .45 Colt as you've a whole catalogue of cast, semi-jacket and full jacket .429" bullets available.

FWIW I did many years ago look at converting Ishapore 7.62mm NATO SMLE rifles (using tthe Delisle method) to .44 Automag. But never did progress beyond dies, 7.62mm cases to cut down and an Ishapore rifle.

Why? Making the .44 Automag cases was just a pain! I wish I'd seen this thread below:

https://www.shootersforum.com/...less-444-marlin.html

Lastly if you can't get a Delisle to examine see if you can handle an Enfield No8. Thsat's the .22 Rimfire rifle used by two generations of soldiers, sailors and airmen to train. For that also uses the Delisle solution of a foreshortened bolt and barrel that extends rearwards into the receiver.

Meanwhile get well soon.
 
Posts: 6813 | Location: United Kingdom | Registered: 18 November 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of yumastepside
posted Hide Post
Thanks Enfield, I've never been a fan of the 444 and its pistol bullets and I'm just finishing off a 405 Grenadier on a Siamese action, so I don't need to basically replicate.
Below are images I saved from an old NZ hunting magazine which,I think, shows the barrel extension and bolt shortening as per the Delisle.These were modified to work with various short Russian cartridges.



Roger
 
Posts: 1031 | Location: Was NSW, now Tas Australia | Registered: 27 June 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Fantastic. You've got it n those pictures.A lot easier to see than describe. Yes, that's it that shortening of the bolt extending of the barrel, yes.

Thirty years ago someone wrote up in he UK magazines a 7.62x39 conversion. As by fortunate chance the front profile of that cartridge is exactly the same, apparently, as the .303.

So they simply cut off the back of the chamber and set the barrel back. Leaving the bolt if I recall the same length and adding a replacement ejector stud.
 
Posts: 6813 | Location: United Kingdom | Registered: 18 November 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of dpcd
posted Hide Post
You can re drill and tap the ejector screw forward so you don't have to drag brass two inches rearward to eject; that is what I am doing for the 44 mag I am building. Mag is to the rear so I can use the existing release for the M1 Carbine magazine. I don't want to waste an original mag or one of those could be blocked off. And yes, the 444 is an easier way to go; I have done those.
Yes, shortening the bolt is certainly an option...... I am sleeving in the barrel since it is a ruger 77/44 barrel and the shank is small. Just use a piece of any old barrel for that. And I am using a one piece stock, cutting off the butt socket.
 
Posts: 17045 | Location: USA | Registered: 02 August 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
DPCD do you know the story why we had a two piece stock?
 
Posts: 6813 | Location: United Kingdom | Registered: 18 November 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of dpcd
posted Hide Post
Yes I do.
 
Posts: 17045 | Location: USA | Registered: 02 August 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
That's good. I've no need then to post it here.
 
Posts: 6813 | Location: United Kingdom | Registered: 18 November 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of dpcd
posted Hide Post
Just to say that the two major reasons for the two piece stock were the correct decisions for a battle rifle and made it a better piece of equipment, and easier to logistically support, but perhaps a bit harder to manufacture.
 
Posts: 17045 | Location: USA | Registered: 02 August 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Easier to logistically support.


Correct in that, yes, shorter lengths of wood of the required properties are easier to source, yes.

But...

Ah. This is what I was told. The reason was that the Enfield Smallarms Factory had a huge stack of uncut blank stock blocks of the length for the Martini Henry buttstock and didn't want to waste them as they were useless for anything else.

So the only way to solve it was to make a two piece stock. The tenon is, in fact, on the Lee-Metford, AFAIR the same as the Martini Henry. And the, of course, having started off like that they had to carry on like that.
 
Posts: 6813 | Location: United Kingdom | Registered: 18 November 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of dpcd
posted Hide Post
Ok, no country would base their decision to enter into mass production of a totally new small arm based on some left over stock blanks alone. They did not go to the trouble of re-designing the original Lee design just to use stock blanks. That makes the receiver much harder to machine than a one piece stock would. Unless that was what they wanted all along, which it was; for the following reasons. I was involved in weapons procurement for a long time and the needs of the user ( in this case, the Infantry) are the first priority. Of course, making something that fits those needs is important too. But experience with two piece stocks showed it to be a good design.
1. The two piece stock, well proven on the Martini, with it's 7/16ths attaching bolt, makes for a much stronger butt stock; far harder to break in combat than a one piece stock. Soldiers of all countries are taught to grasp the stock while dropping to the ground to break their fall. Grenade launching also takes a toll on weak stocks, as does bayonet drill-Butt Stroke is hard on stocks.
2. And if it did break, it makes it far easier to stock spares, and change with a new one.
3. And it allows for more than one size fits all stocks, which every other country on the planet used. Except England.
4. And it makes it easier to procure wood for stocks as long pieces of walnut, are not as easy to get as smaller ones. That is why the Germans went to laminated beech in late 41; ran out of walnut.
But I think it was the correct decision; it makes a better battle rifle for a lot of reasons.
 
Posts: 17045 | Location: USA | Registered: 02 August 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
The British military are notoriously "make do and mend" DPCD. It's why the 'scope on the No4(T) has the windage knob on the wrong side. These were intended for the Bren Gun.

But the 'scoped Bren never came about. But you can see the vestigial pads on the side of the body on early Brens.

So when we Brits wanted a sniper rifle to supplement and replace the Pattern 14(T) those responsible suggested that the unused Bren 'scopes be used up.

Now...you may doubt the thing about the stock blanks. But the source was Herb Woodend who I knew. So unless it was "tongue in cheek" that is an unimpeachable source.
 
Posts: 6813 | Location: United Kingdom | Registered: 18 November 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of dpcd
posted Hide Post
Given all the other very valid reasons to have a two piece stock on what they knew would amount to millions of rifles being needed, the notion that the decision was made solely on that one thing, the availability of wood, it is inconceivable to me. I understand the importance of saving money, but the needs of the user is more important; I think in this case they just happened to correspond. After all, the benefits of the two piece stock were already well proven; why change it. But not based solely on a stack of wood.
Does your source have any documentation on what happened in the 1880s? Without that....
I stand by my analysis. Everyone is free to believe what they want in the absence of proof, of course.
 
Posts: 17045 | Location: USA | Registered: 02 August 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of dpcd
posted Hide Post
Found some interesting information on the development of a magazine rifle for England in the book, "The British Service Lee". It was like pulling teeth just to get a magazine rifle to be considered; most felt that a single shot was all that was needed and a magazine was only for emergencies. Hence the magazine cut off on many rifles of the period. There is about 50 pages of original documentation on the trials.
Several rifles were tested and the Remington made Lee basically won the trials.
The two piece stock came later, from Patent #13325, Oct 1, 1888 submitted by John Speed, Asst Manager of Enfield.
In the description of the Magazine Rifle, MK1, dated 12 Aug 1889, the stock is described:
"The stock, like that of the Martini Henry, is in two pieces, the fore end and the butt. Under the hinder part of the small of the butt is a projection, forming a so called, "pistol grip". The butt is secured to the body by a "stock bolt". All rifles of this pattern will have the same length of butt instead of butts being "long and short", as heretofore. The butt is 3/8 inch shorter than that of the "short butt" Martini Henry rifle.
Just interesting history.
 
Posts: 17045 | Location: USA | Registered: 02 August 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
The magazine cut-off was a safety feature. To enable the magazine to be loaded and then, after the cut-off was pushed across the bolt closed. It is a myth that it was to enable single loading with a reserve of cartridges for emergency. Loading single cartridges thus would be potentially damaging to the extractor.

The rifle is designed, even with a single round, to be loaded with that round starting its journey forwards to the breech from below the bolt. In fact, although the reason is not stated, the British Army Musketry Regulations of 1909 specifically states that the cut-off is not to be used for single loading. So it's an odd thing the cut-off it mutates from being for one purpose to being for another purpose.

To show this load an SMLE with ten or five rounds and try and close the bolt on an empty chamber using just one hand. It can't be done. The rifle does as it is designed to. It carries a round up. But push the cut-off across (which can be done single handed) and the bolt can be closed on an empty chamber. So what's the reason for all this? Simple? When first issued the rifle had no safety catch. So it couldn't be carried safely with a round chambered.

The cut-off enabled the rifle to be carried such that it could be carried with a full magazine ready for immediate use by using a single hand for charging the magazine and then pushing the cut-off across and then closing the bolt. When fire with the enemy was engaged a single handed operation of withdrawing the cut-off and working the bolt brought the rifle into action.

British Army soldiers were trained that once the command LOAD had been given that they, in their own time between firing, were to keep the rifle fully loaded until the command UNLOAD was given. There is no command, nor drill, for single loading using the cut-off with the rifle in the British Army.

But in our Royal Navy there was indeed a drill, and words of command, for using the Webley .455" Self Loading Pistol as a single loader with the magazine in the weapon but lowered. I owned a copy of Skennerton's book once (I met him once in Nottingham when the Pattern Room was located there) I think Herb Woodend is mentioned somewhere in Skennerton's book. Skennerton's book has been criticised by some and validly so. Reynold's although hard reading is in some ways a better book.
 
Posts: 6813 | Location: United Kingdom | Registered: 18 November 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of dpcd
posted Hide Post
From the Official Text of the approval of the Magazine Rifle, MK1, approved 22 December 1888; Each component of the rifle is discussed:
Definitely not a myth; but documented.
Magazine...The Magazine consists of a sheet metal box,.......
A "cut-off", is fitted to the right side of the body, which, when pressed inwards, stops the supply of cartridges from the magazine, so the the arm may be used as a single loader. When the cut-off is pulled out, the lower edge of the bolt, on its being driven forward, engages the top edge of the uppermost cartridge in the magazine, and forces it into the chamber, and so on, until the magazine is emptied.
My comment: the Lee extractor is designed to snap over the rim of a cartridge, loaded directly into the chamber; I do it all the time; it is quite easy on the Lee-Enfields. And doctrine of the time, including the US, called for single loading and keeping the magazine in reserve. Well documented.
Germany did not follow that philosophy and hence, all models of Mauser, feed only from the magazine.
The cut off was another of Speed's patents as the requirements for single loading are mentioned often in the official requirements documents.
Many other examples of the use and requirement for a magazine cut off, and the rifle to be used as a single loader.
Now, during WW1, 2 Jan 1916, this feature was deemed unnecessary, and it was deleted from production.
 
Posts: 17045 | Location: USA | Registered: 02 August 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of dpcd
posted Hide Post
Paragraph 32 of the Small Arms Committee report;
It would be short sighted to lay stress on the magazine qualities of an arm only, to the exclusion of the other points mentioned in paragraph 19 of this Memorandum, which are far more important; more especially when it is probable that the magazine would seldom or ever be used, whereas the rifle should be at all times a simple, handy, and efficient single loader not likely to get out of order.
Me; another, of many, references to single loading and holding the magazine in reserve.
It was a long time from 1888 to 1909 when they decided to change tactical use of the rifle and rely only on magazine fire, and more to 1916 when they decided to stop putting the cut off on new rifles.
I know you are an Enfield expert; I am just looking at original source documents. But also have fired a few thousand rounds from #1 and #4 Enfields.
 
Posts: 17045 | Location: USA | Registered: 02 August 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
I agree source documents are the only reliable reference. As they show the context. Skennerton's failing is that he often omits the context.
 
Posts: 6813 | Location: United Kingdom | Registered: 18 November 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of yumastepside
posted Hide Post
Hi! Remember me? I'm the bloke looking for help on an odd sort of rifle....as the case length on the 44 mag and 45 colt are the same, I'm assuming that a bullet of equal weight and shape should be shorter in the 45 than the 44, so I too could use M1 carbine mags.
I would be interested in seeing how you did things on your 44 version dpcd, and Enfield, I think the barrel extending back into the action would be the way to go. I think a short barreled, full wood rifle would make a brilliant pig/thick scrub gun, a bit like a miniature 45-70.

Roger
 
Posts: 1031 | Location: Was NSW, now Tas Australia | Registered: 27 June 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Von Gruff
posted Hide Post
Some excellent reading there guys and as always Alf has some authoritative input.


Von Gruff.

http://www.vongruffknives.com/

Gen 12: 1-3

Exodus 20:1-17

Acts 4:10-12


 
Posts: 2681 | Location: South Otago New Zealand. | Registered: 08 February 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
You might possibly find Desert Eagle magazines a better choice? And, again, I'd suggest that .44 Marlin or .44 Magnum is a better choice than .45 Colt.

Simply because there is a better choice of bullets. In the real world .44 Colt doesn't offer anything that .44 Magnum cannot equal or, by a big margin, exceed.

I'd be happy to take deer with a long barrel .44 Magnum SMLE or No4 but I'd not be confident that a .45 Colt would do the job as well.

Nobody comes on here to be lectured. But that's my feelings. .444 Marlin is best. If you want a pistol cartridge then go for .44 Magnum.
 
Posts: 6813 | Location: United Kingdom | Registered: 18 November 2007Reply With Quote
Moderator

Picture of Mark
posted Hide Post
For the time being this person is still making 45 ACP conversion kits:

http://www.specialinterestarms.../index.php?page=home

You may want to give him a call and see what his thoughts are on other pistol calibers as there's probably a good reason other than DeLisle replicas and easily obtainable magazines that he made the decisions he did.


for every hour in front of the computer you should have 3 hours outside
 
Posts: 7756 | Location: Between 2 rivers, Middle USA | Registered: 19 August 2000Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of dpcd
posted Hide Post
Yuma; yes, very sorry for the side track but some information had to be clarified and documented.
The guy making the 45 ACP conversions gets $2k for his; I, and probably you, want to do it for somewhat less.
Sure, making it 444 ie easier; I have built them and you just have to bend the lips to make it feed.
But I, and Yuma, want to make a pistol caliber; I am doing a 44 mag because I got a cheap Ruger barrel. But a 45 Colt will be fully its equal.
Desert Eagle magazine? Yes, those are $35. I already have Carbine mags, and they will work for a few rounds; they also feed vertically. A Desert Eagle mag will work better, but be harder to install.
Moving the barrel back?: more work altering the bolt. I won't be doing that.
 
Posts: 17045 | Location: USA | Registered: 02 August 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of dpcd
posted Hide Post
Just had another brain surge; I wake up every night at 3AM with ideas in my head. I didn't say good ideas. Just ideas.
Use a Remington 788 44 mag magazine, in the Enfield. Make a sheet metal plate to hold it in place, just like on the 788.
Numrich: $28.
I don't know if they will hold 45 colt but when I get mine I will let you know.
 
Posts: 17045 | Location: USA | Registered: 02 August 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of yumastepside
posted Hide Post
.....I think these 3am brainfarts are the curse of all us tinkerers Roll Eyes

Found this on the interweb....



Roger
 
Posts: 1031 | Location: Was NSW, now Tas Australia | Registered: 27 June 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of yumastepside
posted Hide Post
.....after further investigation, 44 mag using AK single stack mag....



and 30 M1 Carbine mag ( in 30 carbine )....



Roger
 
Posts: 1031 | Location: Was NSW, now Tas Australia | Registered: 27 June 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of dpcd
posted Hide Post
I got the 788 mag in today. It's smaller than I remembered them; it holds 3 rounds. It will hold 45 Colt too.
I am going to use it but I don't think it offers anything that the Carbine mag doesn't.
I like that AK mag idea though and I think I have one of the short ones like that. . ...
 
Posts: 17045 | Location: USA | Registered: 02 August 2009Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata  
 


Copyright December 1997-2023 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia