>tfw you will never be a state of the art bad ass with his

File: disgusting.jpg (75KB, 570x845px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 570x845px

>>33887579
GOOD. Ammo compatible with pistol and rifle is a meme that just makes for poor rifle performance anyway.

>>33887579
Cancer

>>33888697
>>33888795
>he hates logistics

Also doesn't Ian talk all the time about how great it would be to have a common round for a revolver and lever gun?

>>33890558
>Ian is the philosophical end all of weapons/their combat performance
>Never even served in the military
Like I enjoy Ian and his channels but goddamn you autists need to lighten up a bit, the dude isn't gun Jesus and he's never even been fucking shot at. So take everything he says with a grain of salt

>>33890584
It isn't like you had amazing options back when 44-40 was a thing. Your options were, a musket, a single shot rifle in something like 45-70 or 45-60. It wasn't until the 1890s that you got those higher powered rifle rounds in a repeating fire weapon.

>>33890584
Neither have most vets and the ones that do have just had potshots taken at them

>>33890584
>you have to get shot at to understand logistics
Ok

>>33890677
why not get your rifle chambered in .45 colt then?

>>33891567
Because it was more common to find a rifle and pistol both in 44-40 than it was to find a rifle and pistol both in .45 colt.

They made Single action armies, Model 3's, and Merwin Hulbert in 44-40. Literally the 3 best handguns are in 44-40. I can't think of a single rifle that would have been in .45 colt. Even the .45 colt rifles that are used today only are in .45 colt because it is a popular cowboy action round and just exist for larpers because they didn't exist in the 1800s

>>33888697
>>33888795
spotted the no-guns

File: colt burgess.jpg (753KB, 900x1508px) Image search: [Google]

753KB, 900x1508px

>>33891567
.44-40 is a necked cartridge that extracts better from a repeater. there's a reason that even Colt never chambered their levergun for .45 Colt.

Imagine if you live out in the old west. Would you rather have a rifle and pistol that both used the same ammo, or a rifle and pistol you had to buy 2 different kinds of ammo for? Oh and if this is before 1886 your choices for a bigger caliber rifle were only single shots

Shit'd be like owning a 9mm hand gun and a .40 PCC. If your only non single shot choice is a PCC then picking one in the same caliber as your handgun makes a lot of sense.

>>33892426
The Marlin 1881 was in 4570 tho

>>33893111
Which came out 8 years after the 44-40 round.

>>33893231
I was responding to the "before 1886" comment.

>>33893580
How many rifles was marlin producing in 1881. I don't think marlin was that large of a company until the world wars. At least not as big as winchester or Remington was at the time.

>>33892426
>>33893111
Technically there was the Winchester 1876, which you could get in .45-75 Win (intended to duplicate .45-70 in a shorter cartridge) and other similarly large rounds.

>>33892426
>>33893111
Before that there was the 1876 in 45-75.

>>33893676
Well shit, you beat me by a second.

>>33891567
The rifle you're suggesting wasn't made until fairly recently and far after even .44-40 started to fall off the radar

>>33894459
the case/ chamber dimensions aren't /that/ different, theres no reason that a period gun couldn't be barreled/chambered in .45 colt

>>33895061
>theres no reason that a period gun couldn't be barreled/chambered in .45 colt

Except no one did. To my knowledge even Colt never chambered a rifle for .45 Colt.