Lots of them out there. 44-40 is, in my opinion, a much better choice for these reproduction rifles than 45 Colt. Accuracy is excellent, plus the 44 Winchester seals the chamber being a bottleneck case which prevents the blowback of powder residue into the mechanism like the 45 Colt leverguns. My 1860 and 1866 Uberti rifles are 44-40 and my 1873 is 45 Colt. I have to clean and oil the elevator and chamber after every outing to keep it from binding.

Could be a generous chamber in the 45 Colt rifles, but bottleneck calibers are much better at sealing and keeping your rifle clean and operating than straight-walled cases.

Attached Images

	Uberti 44-40.jpg (23.9 KB, 9 views)
	3a.jpg (109.3 KB, 8 views)

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

Howdy

Sorry to be late to the party.

Regarding whether or not 44-40 was a good cartridge in the Old West, Colt chambered 71,391 1st Generation Single Action Army revolvers for the cartridge, second only to 45 Colt, with 158,885 1st Gen Colts chambered for 45 Colt.

It is true Smith and Wesson chambered nowhere near as many revolvers for 44-40; 2,072 New Model Number Three revolvers chambered for it and 15,340 44 Double Actions chambered for 44-40. I'm not sure why S&W did not favor the cartridge as much, but one factor is the original 1 7/16" long cylinder of both of those revolvers was not long enough to accommodate the 44-40 cartridge. It was not until sometime later when S&W started using 1 9/16" long cylinders in both models that they could be chambered for 44-40 (or 38-40 for that matter). 1 7/16" long cylinders had been standard with #3 Top Breaks going back to 1869 with the American Model, chambered for the 44 S&W American cartridge with its heeled bullet, and on into Russian production, with over 150,000 made, the great majority chambered for 44 Russian. Schofield cylinders were also only 1 7/16" long, which is why they could never be chambered for 45 Colt, but instead the shorter 45 Schofield cartridge was developed for the Schofield model.

But with Colt chambering over 70,000 revolvers for the cartridge, one could hardly say it was not a popular chambering. With all due respect, the 'purpose' of the 44-40 cartridge was to come up with a more powerful rifle cartridge than the 44 Henry Rimfire cartridge, which had preceded it as the only available chambering for the 1860 Henry and 1866 Winchester rifles. One needs to remember that in the early days of repeating rifles, the really large, powerful 'rifle' cartridges, such as 45-70, were reserved for heavily built single shot rifles, such as the Sharps and other single shot rifles. The mechanisms of the early repeating rifles were relatively lightly built, so the rifles would not be overly heavy. Compared to the 44 Henry Rimfire, with 26 grains of powder and a 216 grain, later 200 grain bullet, the 44-40 with 40 grains of powder behind a bullet that weighed around 215 grains was a step of magnitude over the 44 Henry in power. Witness the fact that the Henry and 1866 Winchester had bronze (not brass) frames, but when the 44-40 came along for the Model 1873 Winchester, the frames were made of iron, and later steel.

By 1878 Colt thought highly enough of the 44-40 cartridge to begin chambering it in the Single Action Army.

With all due respect, very few shooters were loading their own ammunition in the Old West. Most went to the local hardware store and bought a box or two of factory ammuntion, which would probably last them for a year or two.

Getting back to specifics, I have been loading 44-40 for probably about 20 years now, the overwhelming majority of it with Black Powder. I have been loading 44 Russian for not quite as long, probably only 10 years or so, also with Black Powder, I don't remember ever loading any 44 Russian with Smokeless.

I always say 44-40 is not difficult to load, but it is a bit fussy to load. This is because the neck at the case mouth is so thin, only about .007 thick, as opposed to 45 Colt which is about .012 thick at the case mouth. Yes, if one is not careful it is easy to bulge the case mouth of a 44-40. The answer is two fold. One has to be very careful setting your dies just right. The problem arises with 44-40 if the case is allowed to rise high enough in the crimp die so that the case mouth butts up against the underside of the crimp groove of the bullet. As the case is 'swallowed' by the seating/crimp die, if the brass butts against the underside of the bullet crimp groove, it has nowhere to go. Thicker brass such as with 45 Colt can dig its way into the bullet, but the thin brass of 44-40 (and 38-40 too) is not sturdy enough to dig into the bullet. Instead, something has to give, and the brass will buckle down below the bullet. I actually have been using a trick to load 44-40 for years. I leave a tiny gap, maybe .005 or so, between the tippy top of the case mouth and the underside of the crimp groove. That way the thin case mouth never butts against the bullet, and forms a nice crimp.

The other problem with the thin brass at the mouth of 44-40 is if the case is a little bit off center in the shell holder/shell plate, and bumps into the bottom of the decap/sizing die, it will probably crumple and the case will be ruined. I have been loading 44-40 on my Hornady Lock and Load AP progressive press for many years. I learned a long time ago I have to run the machine a little bit slower when loading 44-40 than 45 Colt. If I feel a case bump into the bottom of the decap/sizing die on the way up, I immediately stop the stroke, so the case is not damaged. I take a moment to straighten the case in the shell plate before proceding. I can load 45 Colt a lot faster, and if a case bumps into the bottom of the die on the way up it will just shrug off the blow. As I said, loading 44-40 is a bit fussy, and I take my time, rather than setting the dials on the press at warp speed like I do for 45 Colt.

Here is a batch of 44-40s being loaded on my Hornady press. Yes, the brass is stained, once it has been fired with Black Powder it stays stained, even after being tumbled.






Just for the fun of it, I set up my dies badly once to try to get a crumple under the bullet. Here is what happens if the brass bumps into the underside of the crimp groove on the way up. The brass has nowhere to go, so it crumples under the bullet.






Most of my 44-40 loading has been for rifles, I currently have five rifles chambered for the cartridge. I only have two revolvers chambered for 44-40, I will get into them in a moment. During the 19th Century, rifling groove diameters for 44-40 were all over the map. In theory they were .427, but they were in fact as small as .425 and as large as .430 or more. My rifles, I have slugged them all, some of which are antiques and some are modern Uberti replicas have rifling groove diameters of either .427 or .429. Most modern manufacturers are using the same .429 barrels for 44-40 as they do for 44 Special/44 Magnum, but not all of them. My first two 44-40 rifles, an antique Winchester Model 1892 and a modern Uberti 1873 replica both had .427 diameter rifling grooves. I was using .427 diameter bullets for them and everything worked fine. About ten years ago I bought my Uberti 1860 Henry replica, chambered for 44-40, and its barrel groove diameter is .429. Darned if I was going to load different diameter bullets for different rifles, I compromised on .428 diameter for all my 44-40 bullets ever since, and everything has been fine. Yes, my bullets are very soft lead, and they may be bumping up in diameter in the bore in front of the hot, expanding Black Powder gasses, I have no way of knowing. In any case, my .428 soft lead bullets have been fine in all my 44-40 rifles.




About 15 years ago I got my first antique Smith & Wesson Top Break, a New Model Number Three, chambered for 44 Russian, the most popular chambering for that model. These days I have a pair of New Model Number Threes, as well as a pair of 44 Double Actions, all chambered for 44 Russian. I use the same .428 bullets in my Black Powder 44 Russian ammunition as I use for my 44-40 ammo.

This is a photo of the 200 grain Mav-Dutchman Big Lube bullet I use, with and without lube, in both my 44 Russian and 44-40 loads. The 44 Russian loads carry about 19.5 grains of Schuetzen FFg under the 200 grain bullet, the 44-40 loads carry about 33.3 grains of Schuetzen FFg under the same bullet. It is tough to get 40 grains of powder into modern solid head 44-40 brass without compressing the dickens out of the powder. My bullets compress the powder about 1/16" - 1/8" when seated, which is plenty. By the way, with Black Powder cartridges, which are completely filled with powder, the relative sizes of the cartridges gives a pretty good indication of their relative power.






As I said earlier, I only have two revolvers chambered for 44-40, a Merwin Hulbert Pocket Army and a Colt New Service.









It is difficult to get an accurate reading on groove diameter in the Merwin because it has five groove rifling. My best guess is the groove diameter is about .429. The chamber throats are a little bit tight, right at .428.

Here is a view down the chambers of the Merwin Hulbert. The taper for the bottleneck of the 44-40 cartridge is visible, as is the narrower diameter at the chamber throat.






It is much easier to measure a slug run through the Colt because it has six groove rifling. Barrel groove dimension is right at .430. Chamber throats are .428. The profiles of the chambers are pretty easy to see in this photo. First the taper for the bottleneck, then the narrower diameter of the chamber throat.






Even with its tight chamber throats, the Merwin does pretty good on the target range. Not pinpoint accuracy, but good enough for me.






I wish I could report on the New Service, but the fact is the lockup is a bit loose, and I have never actually fired it.

Sorry.




Pretty good accuracy with 44 Russian in one of my New Model Number Threes. The flyer was my fault.

That is odd. My Uberti revolver in .44-40 manages very honest 2,5 to 3 lnch groups at 25 meters. I know that is slightly inferior to the .44 Russian family of cartridges potencial for accuracy. But from this to not hitting the broad side of a barn there is a big difference. I'd say there is a problem somewhere.

__________________
Expect the unexpected

I didn’t know they made Uberti’s before 1899.
It's amazing on this forum how members like to cut and paste posts then twist and distort them. Even add 120 years of production improvements to somehow make them applicable to the "ANTIQUE ERA" That is the category that my posts are written and are ONLY relevant to the ANTIQUE ERA and what was available in the ERA "PRIOR" to 1899 only!!!....NO FAIR adding 120 years and trick smokeless loads, various bullets, and modern pistols. That's not what they had pre-1899.

Murph

"Lots of them out there. 44-40 is, in my opinion, a much better choice for these reproduction rifles than 45 Colt. Accuracy is excellent, plus the 44 Winchester seals the chamber being a bottleneck case which prevents the blowback of powder residue into the mechanism like the 45 Colt leverguns. My 1860 and 1866 Uberti rifles are 44-40 and my 1873 is 45 Colt. I have to clean and oil the elevator and chamber after every outing to keep it from binding."

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it is not the bottleneck that makes 44-40 (and 38-40 too) seal a chamber so well. It is how thin the brass is at the case mouth. As I said, 44-40 brass tends to only be about .007 thick at the case mouth. 45 Colt tends to be about .012 thick. The thinness of the brass at the case mouth is what allows 44-40 brass to seal the chamber so well at the relatively low pressures generated by Black Powder, not the shape.

I do agree with you, my BP 44-40 rounds seal the chamber in my rifles much better than the other shooters' 45 Colts. I have seen this many times at a CAS match. The price paid is that 44-40 is a little bit 'fussier' to load than 45 Colt. And there are no carbide dies for 44-40, cases need to be lubed so they don't get stuck in the sizing die.

I really enjoyed your Missive a few posts above, on Loading and so on. Inspiring..!

It also made me realize, I do not yet have any .44 - 40 Loading Dies. Lol...oooops, clean forgot to even get any...will hit ebay right after this.

I too have a Merwin Hulbert Pocket Army in "1873 Winchester" and it's Cylinder Bores are right on at .425, and I'll check the Groove to Groove again sometime, but it seemed same as Cylinder Bores last time I checked.

Seems a little snug for usual .44-40, but I guess a guy on the frontier ( or me, soon, ) could thumb them in with a little extra push.

My poor Loading Bench ended up getting a bunch of stuff from Storage set in front and ON top of it, ( two foot worth of things set on top of it, eeesh! Mostly boxes of small things...and worse in front of it, ) and Work Work has has me so occupied, I let it build up...and got stalled on the put-aways.

It'll take most of a Day to get the Loading Bench back in action, let alone, sorting and putting away stuff from Storage...

Well, hankering to be Loading!!!

Wish me luck!

Have Brass, Molds, Powder, Primers, for the .44 WCF, just need to get those Dies on the way...and put away that incidental clutter.

I recently found a Colt New Service at a local gunshop chambered in 44-40 . I really wanted to buy it but had his gunsmith measure the cylinder throats and barrel groove size . The report came back as : cylinder throats pretty consistent @ .427 . The groove size of the barrel was a very disappointing .433 . So I passed . They kept telling me that was " no big deal " and it would shoot just fine with bullets sized .427 . I didn't buy into that theme . Regards Paul

Don't forget Case Lube. There are no carbide dies for tapered cases like 44-40, so you need to lube your cases so they don't get stuck in the decap/resizing die.

I like Hornady's One Shot case lube.

I line up 50 cases, bottom side up, and give a quick spray on the cases around four sides of the block. Then I set the block aside and set up my dies in the press. By then the lube has dried on the brass and I am ready to start loading. Don't spray too much, a little dab will do ya. If droplets of lube are left on the brass they can cause dimples in the brass as it is run through the decap/sizing die because liquids cannot be compressed.

Some guys dump their brass into an old pillow case or something and spray into the pillow case, then rumble the brass around in the pillow case, but I have been using my method for a long time. I have lots of wooden loading blocks, I usually load up 200 rounds (4 blocks) of 44-40 at a time.

Thank you!

Will do!

That's horrible! Eeeeesh!

I too have a Colt "New Service" in 44-40, made 1899...

Checking it just now, it's Cylinder Bores are .428, and, the Barrel's Groove to Groove, .425

Have them double-check that .433 measure, who knows, maybe they goofed in measuring it..?

Great post Driftwood,
My posts are only an attempt to stay "Historically Accurate" and a focus on Smith & Wesson's Frontier models both in Double action and Single action. A short lived concept for Smith & Wesson.

I didn't want to get into the Colts or the number produced by same. Although they also are no where near as accurate at the straight case pistol rounds. I have a few Colts in the Old Frontier Six Shooter and they serve only as a close range self defense firearm. "WITH ORIGINAL BLACK POWDER LOADS"!

If we remain Historically accurate? From the introduction of the dual cartridge concept( Rifle/Pistol) until the end of the Antique Era the choices for shooters (rounds?) was minimal. So we can't plug in a modern load, bullet, solid head case design, hot primer, etc into the mix. To be Historically accurate we must use a Pure lead 200 grain flat nose bullet that was used for the Rifle tubular magazine and a balloon head case. The cartridge industry at that time did not differentiate the two (Rifle/Pistol). During the Black Powder ERA You couldn't buy black powder pistol rounds for the 44WCF. It was the same round/cartridge/ black powder loading for both. Even the early loading data that I have uses the FFG powder select for the Pistol loading. You can post and show an early cartridge 44 WCF pistol box but that same box would be a "POST" 1900 manufacture.

We also, in my opinion, can't use a "combat distance" of 21 feet or 7 yards as applicable to accuracy. That's "sling shot distance". In my opinion the minimum distance would be 20 yards as a comparable distance and a laughable distance from my experience would be 50 yards with the 44WCF in "ORIGINAL BLACK POWDER LOADS". Using original Antique revolvers only!!! That's HISTORICALLY ACCURATE!

So, to be specific. If we took a Smith and Wesson New Model 3 chambered in 44 Russian SA with 6" barrel and compared it to a 44 Frontier SA at say 25 yards distant? With ORIGINAL, PERIOD, and by PERIOD loads I mean ALL that was available to those who actually lived in the Black Powder ERA? The results would be NO CONTEST. Almost laughable.

The 44WCF in a Pistol loading during the Black Powder Antique era in my opinion would serve only as a self defense pistol and at "CLOSE" range only.

If you want to be inaccurate and plug in Uberti's and modern smokeless trick loads, hardened bullets etc? Then I get to use my 44 Mag as the modern substitute for the old 44 Russian and the results would be the same.

NO CONTEST.



Murph

My Uberti may be modern, yes. But my "trick load" is 30/35 grs swiss n° 1 blackpowder and my "trick bullets" are the 2 groove flat point 200 grs. Cast soft and lubbed with a mutton tallow beeswax mix, more tallow than beeswax. I'm sorry but I cannot get my hands on a really antique .44-40 where I Iive. My bad.

__________________
Expect the unexpected

Kurusu,
Can you get your hands on an Antique 44 Russian? If so, then you can see for yourself the comparison. Actually, any 44 straight case pistol. 44 Special, 44 Mag, etc. The comparison will be NO CONTEST. The further the distance the more obvious the difference in accuracy becomes.

If you can't believe the Historical concept? Then believe that one can manufacture dozens of loads for the straight case 44 where as you are extremely limited with the 44WCF in a pistol. I can dial my 44 in at any distance up to 100 yards by changing powder/ bullet type and weight, seat depth, etc. but the 44WCF? What are the options with the 44WCF?

Doesn’t Uberti make a 44 Russian?


Murph

Sorry my short range pistol shooting does not please you. Actually, I'm not sorry at all. I only use these revolvers in CAS, and that is how far we usually shoot them. Regarding a target 20 or 25 yards away, until I had cataract surgery earlier this year I could barely see a target 25 yards away, much less shoot accurately at it.

Here is a photo of my Smith and Wesson Top Break revolvers chambered for 44 Russian. The two I shoot most often are the pair of New Model Number Threes near the bottom of the photo. Next up a pair of 44 Double Actions, the one on the left is a target model, the one on the right has been reblued rather badly. Finally at the top a 2nd Model Russian on the left and a 1st Model Russian on the right. I don't like shooting the 2nd Model Russian, the grip is very awkward. I have to put the heel of my hand in contact with the pointy 'knuckle' on the grip in order to reach the hammer spur, and if I forget to regrip again below the knuckle it hurts like the dickens when the revolver recoils, even with a mild cartridge such as 44 Russian. Have not fired the 1st Model Russian yet, that is a project for next Spring, if it ever gets here.






At the bottom of the photo is a sample of some 44 Russian ammo. On the left is a box of Winchester Repeating Arms and UMC mixed together that I picked up somewhere. In the middle is a bag full of WRAC ammo that I also picked up somewhere. The box of Remington Kleanbore ammo I also picked up in my travels. All the way on the right are some of my reloads with modern soft lead bullets and modern Solid Head Starline brass.

There are a couple of spent cases in the Kleanbore box, and they are balloon heads. I assume the rest of the box is too. The other old 44 Russians I do not know if they are balloon heads or not, and I am not going to pull some bullets right now to find out. I assume all the old stuff is loaded with Smokeless, although I have not pulled any bullets to find out. My reloads are loaded with Schuetzen FFg as I believe I described earlier.

I don't quite understand your insistence on everything being exactly as it was produced over 100 years ago, and frankly I don't care. I load my ammo up for my old revolvers, I shoot them at targets close enough that I can see them, and as Forrest Gump said, that's all I have to say about that.




I'll tell you what though. One of these days I will take this pair of 38-40 Colt Bisely revolvers to the range and see how they do against my New Model Number Threes. (Sorry, my 44-40 Merwin Hulbert with its tight chamber throats and loose rifling probably would not do very well.) So we will have to settle for 38-40. Everything will be loaded with Black Powder, although sorry, I don't have any balloon head 38-40 brass, only modern Starline stuff. The bullets will be the same soft lead bullets I use in all my Black Powder cartridges and the powder will be FFg Schuetzen.








I may even bring this old 38-40 1873 Winchester along, just for the fun of it.






Oh yeah, one other thing. I don't load 'rifle ammo' and 'revolver ammo' for these old guns either. I don't have any 44 Russian rifles, but all my 38-40 and 44-40 ammo is the same, no matter what kind of firearm I shoot it from. I don't have any rifles chambered for 45 Colt, such a beast did not exist until the 1980s, but if I did it would get the same 45 Colt Black Powder ammo I fire from my 2nd Gen Colts.