Have any of you shot .44-40 revolvers extensively? Did you ever encounter problems with the cylinder seizing up and not rotating?

I read that happened sometimes in the Old West, with lawman Jeff Milton evidently complaining about it and going back to the .45 Colt. Some men with .44 Winchesters still carried .45 revolvers. There must be a reason why they didn't get revolvers that'd use the rifle ammo.

Did primers flow back into the firing pin holes? Did heat cause cylinder binding? Something else? Or was the problem just grossly over reported? Did Milton and others maybe just get some bad boxes of overloaded cartridges?

Lt. Col. Vincent Fosbery, V.C. reported that .44-40 Colts gave the best stopping power in a revolver that he saw on the NW frontier of then - British India. (Now Pakistan.) He didn't mention the .45 Colt. (Yes, he later designed the Webley-Fosbery automatic revolver.)

Have you had any modern problems with the .44-40?

Please don't tell me that the .44 Special or the .44 Magnum are better choices. I realize that. I've read that from Elmer Keith and others since I was 12, and that was, well, a few years ago.

My curiosity is from a historical standpoint. Would a man have a problem if he chose a .44-40 over the .45 Colt? In the 1880's? As an explorer in the 1920's? I think Sasha Siemel may have had at least one .44-40 in his Smith & Wesson .44's, rather than .44 Special. He just said ".44" Smith & Wessons. He did have a short Winchester M92 carbine, handy in Brazilian jungles. He didn't use a spear on those big jaguars all the time... He also used archery tackle.

So, if you were choosing a handgun in those days, would you trust the .44-40 or use some other caliber? I think I'd lean toward .45 Colt, anyway, due to the bigger bullet (250 grains against just 200 ) and the better penetration, especially on large animals. I've fired .45 Colts and owned one. Never shot a .44-40.

Note that in factory form, the .44-40 is more powerful than the .44 Russian or the .44 Special. I think that caused some men who didn't reload to choose it over those rounds. Siemel may have been among them. And I gather that most Triple-Lock and Second Model Hand Ejectors chambered in .44-40 did go to South America. He may well have ordered one or more from the factory. Later, he knew Col. Wesson, who presented him with an early .357 Magnum. In the 1950's, S&W also gave the famed hunter and explorer a .44 Magnum, too.

I would choose the 44-40 over the .45 Colt for 1 reason.
Accuracy.
Jim

I've been shooting 44/40s for years. Rifles and pistols, Rossi 92s, a Uberti 73, USFA Rodeos and the Smith 544.

I have had not problems with lock-up, set-back, or anything else.

In Skeeter's article about Jeff Milton
Jeff Davis Milton
he tells about that gun locking up. Says it happened with every round.

When I first bought my 41 magnum, I bought Remington factory ammo, and about 2/3 of them pierced primers. I've never had the problem since then. Either THAT box of Remington 41s had **** primers, or Remington primers as a whole are ****. But in the 30 years that I've had that gun I've never pierced another primer (I use CCI in my loads).

I think that, either Ranger Milton got a bad box of ammo, or had a defective gun.

Actually, a man might have a problem if he chose the 45 over the 44.

Long-Guns of the Gunfighters

Texas Ranger George Lloyd, during an 1881 gun battle, shoved a 45 Colt into the tube of his 73 Winchester. Had to take his pocketknife, while under fire, and take the sideplates off, to un-jam it.

__________________
I always take precautions

I've used the 44/40 for years in various Winchester rifles and Colt and Uberti revolvers. Never had a problem with any of them. Back in the day, though, we often shot without ear protection - I know - and that cartridge was a real ear-splitter in the shorter revolvers. Much louder than the Colt .45 and I don't know why the difference. I once killed 5 sage grouse with 5 shots from a 1903 nickel plated, pearl stocked 4 3/4" Colt. Sure wish I still had that one! I'd bet that most of the problems that Jeff Milton or others might have had were the result of a batch of bad ammo rather than any inherent problem with the cartridge itself.

Thanks, guys. This is essentially what writer Mike Venturino told me as I recall, when I asked him several years ago. But I wanted additional opinions.

I might have thought the .357 Magnum was a bad round if I went solely by the experience that I had with one M-19. The cylinder locked up and had to be forced open. I took it back to the store where I'd just bought it and their gunsmith checked it. It had a tiny burr around the firing pin bushing and on firing, the primer flowed back into that and it hung up the gun. He took a soft Arkansas hone and polished off the burr and the gun worked okay thereafter. I've never had a problem with any other .357 and have owned maybe 15 or 16.

Thanks again for the feedback. BTW, the rifle situation was never an issue, just how the tapered ctg. fares in revolvers.

Having fired many thousands of 44-40's in SASS matches, there are a few thing that I have learned....when reloading make sure they are lubed, belling of the case is critical as is the correct size bullet for your guns.

Slow down and be sure that the case is going straight into the die body, don't over crimp as the casing will collapse easily....once done go enjoy some fabulous accuracy...

Even more fun is to shoot it with black powder.....the bottle neck design seals in the chamber SO nice and feeds SO smooth my lever guns it is almost like cheating!!

Enjoy this resurrected cartridge!!

Randy

PS. Yes, I DID choose the 44-40 over the 45 Colt and Yes, I too have had a 45 Colt find its way into my 73 Uberti and it fouls things up badly!!Would trust a 44-40 anytime......

Growr: Words of wisdom on reloading the 44-40. It applies also to reloading the 38-40. Those cases are made out of tissue paper and will collapse easily.

The two S&W revolvers I have, a M544 & a converted M28-2 now a 38-40 both have be a real challenge to reload for....

__________________
Only difference Fool/Mule-ears

I've had an Uberti Remington, a 1907 Colt Bisley, 2 different New Services, and a 3rd gen SAA w/2 cyl's (WCF and Special). All shot well, were easy to load for, and only crushed a case or two when I screwed up or got distracted. I had a WAY less than satisfactory experience with a S&W M25-5 - poor accuracy, split brass, pulled-off rims - Phooey ! Sold the gun and all the .45 Colt gear as a package, went to .44-40 and never looked back.

Larry

Cyrano...the 38-40 is another resurrected cartridge that is a hoot. First time I ever fired one was as a SASS match in an original Winchester '73.
We had a lot of rifle knock down targets and the 38-40 packed a significant wallop!! Even marginal hits went over with a great deal of authority. I always thought of the 38-40 as the original 10mm!!

You are also quite right on the thin casings being easily crunched....biggest thing I earned is to slow down and be very sure the casings are absolutely going into the die body straight.

Randy

I keep a small batch "accordianed" 44/40 cases right above my press station to remind me to not get careless when loading them.

__________________
Dean
SWCA #680 SWHF #446

I have to add mi dos centavos. More in the modern side of the discussion. As a cowboy action shooter my first rifle was a Rossi Model 92 in .44-40. My revolvers were .45 Colt Vaqueros. I got exasperated shooting two calibers so I obtained a Navy Arms/Rossi M92 in .45 Colt and went on down the road - except I couldn't stand not matching that Rossi .44-40 up with revolvers so I acquired two Vaqueros in that caliber - since sold all three to a good friend who desperately wanted a matched set of .44-40s and I had gotten over it by that time.

Here's the thing - they were ALL three great shooters, the rifle and the revolvers. However, the two Vaqueros were fussy about brass - the ONLY brass that loaded easily - AND CAME OUT AGAIN EASILY AFTER FIRING - a major issue - was Starline brass. So if you stumble upon old Ruger Vaqueros in .44-40 you need to be aware of that.

Great caliber; if I didn't have those .45s I'd have been delighted to stick with the .44s but I shot all three .45s better than the .44s so I let the latter set go.

The problem I've had with the 38/40 (since we appear to be wandering down that road a bit) is that NEW guns don't seem to have the same chamber dimensions as the OLD guns. That would not really be a problem, except that reloading dies are made for the OLD guns.

I have a New Service, and my reloads drop right in. Winchester 92, and the reloads drop right in. And my Alan Harton-converted 28-2, the reloads drop right in (his chambering reamer must be to the old dimensions).

My US Firearms are a different story. The dies don't quite push the shoulder back far enough to easily fit in the USFA chamber. I have both Lee dies, and RCBS Cowboy dies. Neither one does it. It's a PRESS-fit, as opposed to a drop-in. Removing .01 from the bottom of the sizing die would probably fix it, but I ain't got a round tuit.

Funny, but the USFA have absolutely no problem with factory ammo. You would think (I would think, anyway) that resizing dies would squeeze 'em back to factory spec, but it ain't so.

__________________
I always take precautions

Taking that .01 off of the top of the shell holder might be more efficient.

__________________
Dean
SWCA #680 SWHF #446

For those who might need some, as of last week Starline had .38-40 brass in stock. It had been out-of-stock for some time.
I received 250 pieces of brass last Thursday.
I look forward to reloading same.

(The unsized brass slips easily into the Colt New Service (1916).)

Jim, I don't know how they compare, but my Colt New Service .45, made about 1935, would group all six shots in a ragged hole at 25 yards, shooting from "offhand." I'm sure that a better shot could have done better. Ammo was Remington factory 250 grain loads.

I shoot and reload 44-40 for a Colt Bisley (1903), Winchester '73 (1887 I think), Winchester 92 SRC and did for a Remington 14 1/2 pump rifle for a few years.

I never had any problems with the caliber,,and there's a SAA, 2 Lever actions and Pump Rifle.

I keep my loads light in respect to the age of the guns. I lightly crimp them all as they need to be for the 73 & 92 and did for the 14 1/2 being tube feed.
I've stuck w/a 205gr FN cast & RedDot. Though I do still load BP sub in the caliber sometimes,I used to load it a lot more.
I load on a single stage CH 'H' press and don't encounter any problems with the round.
I like Starline brass, but use assorted Rem and Winchester brass mostly.
I did reform some 38-40 Winchester brass to 44-40 one time but found the necks were too thick. The rounds wouldn't chamber w/a bullet seated.
Thankfully I don't have to to scrimp for brass anymore, there's plenty around now.

I have always found it important to trim the brass to the minimum length after resizing. I have been reloading .44-40 since I was in high school, and that was a long time ago. I use my reloads in either of two Winchester Model 1892 rifles and in a Cimmarron (Uberti) SAA. So far no problems.

I was saving my money to order a USFA Single Action in .44-40, 4 3/4 inch barrel, engraved, and nickel plated, but USFA stopped taking orders. Thanks Doug. Take those plastic Zip guns and stick them in your ear.

I own a USFA SAA with .44 spl. and 44/40 cylinders. I have never had any issues with it when using the 44/40 cylinder and modern ammo. Some of the problems reported with early ammo may have been associated with the use of black powder in this cartridges earlier days. BP can and will cause issues in most revolvers if fouling is allowed to accumulate.

Larry