I suspect almost everyone is familiar with the .32-20 high velocity loads made at one time for rifles. Just about every time that someone submits a question in this forum about their .32-20 revolver, at least one responder feels that it is essential to warn the gun owner against firing .32-20 HV ammunition in it lest very bad things happen to the gun. This despite the fact that .32-20 HV ammunition has not been factory loaded for well over 50 years and it is unlikely a gun owner could find any of it other than from a collectible ammunition dealer.

What I was unaware of until today (even though it is no secret) is that much the same situation existed for the .44-40 cartridge. In 1902, both Winchester and UMC brought out a special high velocity smokeless powder .44-40 cartridge with a 200 grain JSP bullet for use only in more modern rifles like the Winchester Model 92. This cartridge developed a MV several hundred ft/sec greater than the standard .44-40 lead bullet loading. The MVs listed for it were in the mid-1500 ft/sec range. Ammunition catalogs did post warnings that this round was not safe to use in any revolvers. I checked out that cartridge in some of the old ammunition price lists, and found that this particular load likely lasted until the mid-1920s, and was thereafter apparently replaced with another HV load using a much lighter weight 160 grain bullet. It remained listed in Remington ammunition catalogs and price lists until 1942, but is not shown in those after the war.

Just another bit of ammunition lore for those who may have an interest in such things.

You left out the high velocity .38-40.

Same time frame of the other two, exactly the same concept.

__________________
Expect the unexpected

I suspected that the .38-40 would follow the same pattern, but I did not do any research on it.

It did. Capable of near 1800 fps in a rifle.

__________________
Expect the unexpected

A few problems are inherent with .44 WCF (.44-40) ammo, some of which remain as concerns.

First, the original .44-40 cases were of "balloon-head" construction, with the case head and rim formed in a rolling process. That type of case provided far less inherent strength than the more modern solid-head cases. This presented less problems with the original black powder loads, which were simply incapable of producing the pressure levels later encountered with smokeless powders.

Next, there was no such thing as standardization in chamber dimensions, cartridge dimensions, bore diameters, groove diameters, or bullet dimensions. Again, not so much of a problem with black powder loads and the commonly used lead bullets, but when jacketed bullets and smokeless powders came into use relatively small differences became much greater concerns.

Even modern solid-head cartridge cases have relatively thin case walls, and the case necks are quite weak as compared to more modern cartridges. Considerable attention and care must be provided to ammo production so that cartridges will function properly. Handloading must be tailored to the individual firearm in order to have any real hope of good accuracy, safety, and proper function.

I load and shoot .44-40 in an original Winchester 1873 rifle, an original Marlin 1894 rifle, and a 104 year old Colt SAA Frontier Six Shooter. The Marlin is, by far, the strongest of these three. The Colt is probably second in strength. The Winchester is probably the weakest, due to its linkage-based lock-up. There are other differences, as well.

The Colt has a groove diameter of .427" and chamber mouths from .426-.427". The Marlin has a groove diameter of .431", but a chamber that refuses to accept cartridges loaded with bullets more than .429" in diameter. The Winchester has a well worn and scaly bore, but retains good rifling, having a groove diameter of .430" and a chamber that will accept just about anything that can reasonably be seated into a cartridge case.

What functions perfectly in one may not function at all in the others. One of my more interesting projects over the past few years has been working up one load that provides reasonable performance in all three. I think I have reached a decent solution (which uses cast bullets at very modest pressures), but I wouldn't suggest that my ammo should be used in anyone else's guns!

I certainly would not try any of my old classics with "high velocity" loads from any source.

This is a little off-point, but several years ago I came into several dozen fired .44-40 cases. I thought I would be able to fire form them into .45 Colt cases, as I owned nothing in .44-40. Using a set of .44 Mag dies, I neck sized those cases and made up some improvised and fairly light .44-40 loads using Bullseye and 180 grain lead bullets. I fired all of them in a .45 Colt revolver (in this case a Colt New Service). It worked fine, and afterward I had several dozen .45 Colt cases with .44-40 headstamps for reloading. But the surprise to me was that I fired all of them at a paper target about 15 yards away, and all shots hit the paper. None of the .44 bullets appeared to have keyholed. A little later I read something to the effect that some users of .45 Colt revolvers back in the old days were known to have fired .44-40 ammunition in a pinch if they couldn't find any 45 Colt ammunition. I only wish I had thought to chronograph those .44-40 loads.

I’ve always suspected the outsized reputation of the 32/20 (“it’ll shoot clean through a man”) had it’s roots in folks loading up their SAAs, OPs, and M&Ps with the “rifle only” rounds.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”