.38 and .44 WCF Chambering in S&W's

S&W made few guns in .38 and .44 WCF. (.38/40; .44/40.) Colt made many in their SAA and New Service models.

Why do you suppose that so few Smith were made in these calibers? I'm guessing that they shot loose fairly soon and had a bad recoil problem. The shape of the Colt grips didn't allow recoil to be so brutal.

S&W didn't like to chamber for Colt cartridges, but these were Winchester rounds.

Any guesses?

Thanks,

T-Star

Great question T-Star!

Never thought about recoil/mechanical stress as the reason but sounds plausible, at least in the top breaks.

Perhaps the company was trying to generate wider acceptance of its own .44 cartridge and figured the .44-40 would detract from that effort.

Perhaps Smith & Wesson felt that the more tapered .38-40 could be prone to tie up a revolver. Perhaps they felt that both Winchester rounds were less than optimal for revolver use.

Though I personally love to own and shoot .38-40, it is one cartridge that really made no sense to introduce. It isn't really enough smaller than the .44-40 to justify except as a marketing ploy by Winchester to sell a few additional rifles. Odd how Winchester wanted to create the illusion of a greater difference in .44-40 and .38-40 so named their .40 creation .38WCF or .38-40. Only a few hundredths of an inch and 20 grains bullet weight separate the two. Usually bigger is suppose to be better but they actually went the other way.

I've always longed for a Smith & Wesson chambered for the .38-40, especially a Triple Lock. That is THE grail gun for me.

Howdy

Since you are in the antique section, the answer is quite simple. The cylinders of the early Number 3 frames were not long enough to accommodate the 38-40 or 44-40 rounds. The first large frame round chambered by a S&W revolver was the 44 S&W American round. A relatively short round compared to such rounds as 38-40, 44-40, and 45 Colt. The cylinder was long enough to accommodate the 44 S&W American round, there was no need to make it longer. When the Russian model was developed, the 44 Russian round was almost the same as the 44 American round, the difference was the 44 American round used a heeled bullet, the 44 Russian round used a bullet that fit inside the case.

The whole reason the 45 Schofield round was invented was because the cylinder of a Number 3 frame was not long enough to chamber the 45 Colt round, so S&W was allowed to submit the Schofield model to the Army trials with the shorter Schofield round. S&W never sold a great deal of Schofields to the Army, no where near as many as Colt sold. It has often been speculated that the reason the Army declared the Schofield model surplus by 1880 is because of supply problems with ammunition. The Colt Single Action Army could chamber either the Schofield ammo or 45 Colt. But the Schofield model could only chamber the Schofield ammo. I have never seen any proof of this, but it is often speculated that some units that were issued the Schofield revolver may have gotten 45 Colt ammo shipped to them that they could not use.

When the New Model Number 3 came out it was most often chambered for the 44 Russian round. It was also chambered for a variety of other rounds that would fit in its relatively short cylinder. It was the New Model Number 3 that was finally chambered for 38-40 and 44-40, but this could only be done with a special model that had a lengthened frame and cylinder to accommodate the longer rounds. The 44 Double Action was also made in a version with a longer cylinder that could chamber the 38-40 and 44-40 rounds.

I have included a photo that illustrates the relative lengths of some of these cartridges. Left to right the cartridges are 44-40, 44 Special, 44 Russian, 44 S&W American, 44 Henry Rimfire, 45 Schofield and 45 Colt.

As far as handejectors are concerned, I suspect it was simply that S&W was very jealous of the cartridges they developed and wanted to promote them. Just speculation on my part. The words 38 S&W Special and 44 S&W Special are only marked on S&W revolvers. Other companies simply mark them as 38 Special or 44 Special. When the Triple Lock came out, it was the first revolver to be chambered for 44 Special. 44 Special was about a tenth of an inch longer than 44 Russian. Oddly enough, the ballistics were the same. The cylinder of the Triple Lock was long enough to chamber the 44 Special round as well as the slightly longer 38-40, 44-40 and 45 Colt rounds. Since the Triple Lock was the first of the N frame revolvers, all the N frames that followed would be large enough to accommodate those three rounds.

I tend to agree that 38-40 really had no purpose. Winchester developed the 44-40 round for the Model 1873 Winchester. Previous models had chambered the shorter and less powerful 44 Henry Rimfire round. Winchester developed the 38-40 round and it became the second chambering available for the Model 1873 in 1879. The 38-40 is really just a 44-40 necked down to 40 caliber. It is anybody's guess why they did not call it the 40-40. Ballistically it is very similar to 44-40. If you look at sales for the Model 1873, they were starting to dip a bit. I suspect Oliver Winchester simply was trying to sell more rifles to a market that was already becoming saturated by offering a new chambering. Winchester was a very clever entrepreneur.

As far as the tapered cartridges wedging themselves back in a revolver chamber, I recently read some evidence to support that. However, Colt had chambered the Single Action Army for 44-40 by 1878 and it was the second most popular chambering for the SAA, second only to 45 Colt. The SAA was chambered for 38-40 in 1884 and it was the third most popular chambering. So clearly, Colt had solved any problems with spent cases backing out and binding up the cylinders.

Okay, but was S&W's top-break system strong enough for prolonged use with the Winchester rounds?

And how did their guns, esp. the DA Frontier Model, handle the recoil? Has anyone here really shot one? How is it to shoot in .44 Russian?

I think that one reason why the British govt. adopted the Webley in 1887 over the competitive S&W was that the Webley stirrup lock was felt to be stronger. (I'm sure that national pride was also a factor.) And the caliber then was the relatively mild .455.

As for Schofield cylinder length, that was of course a factor, but the ejector system also needed a case with a wider rim than on the .45 Colt. When the Army adopted a DA .45 Colt with a swingout cylinder, they also adopted a special case with a wider rim, the .45 M1909. The more powerful Schofield did have an enhanced top-break system over other S&W's of the general style.

Yet, it fired only a 230 grain bullet at some 730 FPS. The .44 Russian fired a 246 grain bullet at about the same velocity! Yet, it seems not to have needed Schofield's stronger lock. Odd...

Just to add to this info mix, S&W fairly early lengthened the cylinders of the DA top breaks and they are found both in .44-40 and .44 Russ. As for handling the .44-40 round, some showing heavy usage don't seem to fare worse than the .44 Russ. I have heard of 'frame stretch' being a problem in the DAs but I doubt it. Those with big cyl-bbl gap show no stretch of the frame, the looseness being erosion between cylinder and forcing cone of the barrel and less in the top break latch.

I have never fired one of the .44-40s. Later high velocity rounds for rifles I would not want to shoot in an old DA. I reamed one of my .44Russ to take .44 Spec and have shot it quite a bit.

Howdy Again

The Schofield latch was not stronger. It simply operated differently. The standard latch needed two hands to operate it. You pushed up with one thumb on the latch and pushed the barrel down with the other hand. My New Model Number Three is very tight. I actually have to push up with one thumb on one side of the latch and pull up with a curled finger of my other hand on the other side of the latch while simultaneously pushing the barrel down with my forearm. I am doing it right now in order to describe it. It is easiest to do it with the trigger guard braced against my belly. My other S&W top break is a Single Action 38. It is not as tight as my New Model, I can push up the latch with my right thumb while pulling the barrel down with my left hand.

The Schofield latch was designed by a cavalry officer named Major George Schofield who was serving with the 10th Cavalry regiment in Kansas in 1870. He was granted a patent on his improved latch and S&W paid him a royalty of 50 cents on every Schofield model they delivered. His latch was designed to be able to open the gun with one hand while the other hand held the reins. The Schofield latch is mounted on the frame, not on the barrel like all the other S&W topbreaks. You can pull the latch back with one hand and brush the barrel against your leg or saddle to open it and eject the empties. No way I could ride a horse and open my New Model Number Three at the same time. Smith and Wesson were no dummies and I have read that they assigned their engineers to find a way around Schofield's patent. I have not ever read where they succeeded. The Schofield was not made for very long and the New Model Number 3 and the 44 Double Action reverted to the earlier style latch.

They operated differently, but one was not stronger than the other.

You are of course correct about the larger rim on the Schofield round. I have loaded and fired many of them. My 45 Colt shellplate will not accept the larger 45 Schofield rim, I had to buy a special shellplate just for 45 Schofield. And two of my 45 Colt Rugers will not completely chamber the Schofield round because of the larger rims. They do chamber fine in my Colts though, just like in the 1870s.

As for recoil, it depends on the specific model. The American and the Shofield have completely rounded grip frames. The Russian has a severe knuckle on the back of the grip frame. The New Model and the 44 Double Action had a less severe knuckle. I can tell you that firing my New Model Number Three with Black Powder, the recoil is very mild. I hold it like I do all single action revolvers, with my pinky curled under the grip. The grip on the New Model is quite small, it is smaller than a SAA grip. Held the way I describe the grip rolls in my hand during recoil, slowing down much of the recoil impulse. My pinky under the grip and the small knuckle on the frame combine to stop recoil when the muzzle has lifted up a little bit. Recoil with my Black Powder 44 Russian rounds is much less than with my full power 45 Colt loads in a SAA. There is less powder and the bullet is lighter. I can only fit about 19.5 or 20 grains of FFg in the 44 Russian case, the 45 Colt will hold about 35 grains of FFg. And I am firing a 200 grain bullet in my 44 Russians, a 250 grain bullet in my Colts. I suspect because of the grip shape, recoil would be very similar with a 44 Double Action, although I have not had the pleasure of shooting one. I have fired modern Schofield replicas and because of their rounded frames they recoil just as I have described with my New Model Number three.

As far as the more powerful 38-40 and 44-40 rounds, I suspect that the New Model Number Three latch was plenty strong enough for them, even though I must admit I have never had the pleasure of actually shooting one. Remember, even though the charge was nominally 40 grains of powder, the bullet weight for 44-40 is usually only 200 grains, and less for 38-40. The lighter bullets will not create as much recoil impulse or pounding of the frame as a 250 grain 45 Colt bullet would with the same charge.