Years of adoption by the army of some ctges

Could you confirm please the years of adoption by the army of the following ctges :

45-70-405 government by the US army : 1873
45-70-500 government by the US Army : 1879

577 Snider by the British army : 1867
577/450 by the British army : 1871

Thanks
JP

577 Snider - https://sites.google.com/site/britmilammo/-577-inch-snider

577/450 - https://sites.google.com/site/britmilammo/-450-inch-martini-henry

Richard

Thank you very much.

What a shame Tony Edwards is no longer with us.

Who is the guy nowadays who knows the best the british military ctges ?
(specially the pre 1900 ctges)
Thanks
JP

Hello

  1. Nobody (with good knowledge of the us ctges) can tell me if the 45-70-500 ctge was adopted by the us army in 1879 or 1882 ?
    Indeed depending of the source the year is different.

  2. And who knows very well the pre 1900 British military ctges ?

thanks
jp

According to HWS volume 1, starting on page 199:
Prior to 1880 405 grain bullets were standard for both the rifle load (70 grains of black powder) and the carbine (55 grains of powder) which resulted in use of R or C on the headstamp to distinguish between them.

In 1880 experiments started on the 2.4 inch “lengthened” case (compared to the normal 2.1 inch .45-70 case) and was adopted in 1881, with several variations over the next 2-3 years, all for use in “sharpshooters” or more correctly target match use. (The longer .24 inch case was mainly for use in about 150 special rifles, not the several hundred thousand standard service rifles.)

In 1882 the “Caliber .45 Rifle Ball Reloading Model 1882 Cartridge” was adopted with a 500 grain bullet using Boxer primed cases. However, manufacture of 405 grain bullet cartridges and both 405 and 500 grain using the old internal primed cases continued well into 1882.

Subsequent models used the 500 grain bullets for rifle loads:
Model 1886 which used the Morse type detachable base
Model 1888 with tinned brass case
Model 1898 with smokeless powder and therefore a seating cannelure in the case.

thank you John
I agree with you Woodin’s book is a lot more relable than the different websites on internet.

I am still looking now for somebody able to give me as good info on british ctges than Tony.

jp

[quote=“jeanpierre, post:6, topic:30369, full:true”]
thank you John
I agree with you Woodin’s book is a lot more reliable than the different websites on internet.

I am still looking now for somebody able to give me as good info on british ctges than Tony.

jp