I’m researching the American 44 Rimfire caliber. I have extensive notes on the Colt 44 Rimfire SAA and didn’t realize that they are basically a mirror image of each other when it comes to where they were shipped and when they were manufactured. They are pretty rare and most were sent to Mexico City and the Southern states. However, some also were sent to Major Distributors in the East.

Is there any interest in this caliber on the forum?


Murph

Attached Images

	IMG_8059.jpg (25.4 KB, 110 views)
	IMG_8060.jpg (55.9 KB, 115 views)
	IMG_8061.jpg (34.0 KB, 90 views)

I have heard that No 3 S&Ws for Turkey were both purpose built and conversions from 44 Russian to 44 Henry (RF). 1) Is this RF a rebranding of the same cartridge? 2) Is this cartridge Bore diameter in the .429" diameter or the larger 44 American (CF) diameter? 3) can Henry RF ammo function with any accuracy in the "American" RF?

The Turks had bought several thousand Henry rifles for their continual war with Russia, and for logistical reasons had the No 3s in the Henry cartridge. (I think it's a brilliant idea!)

If no one else, at least I'm interested, and looking forward to your revelations!

Ivan

Hi There,


I would be interested in discussing the 44/100 RF cartridge in so
far as it pertains to the No. 3 American model, 1st and 2nd issue.

According to Charels Pate's book: Smith & Wesson American
Model in U.S. and Foreign Service, serial number 1 was submitted
to the Army Ordinance Board of 1870 in New Orleans. That revolver
is in the Springfield Armory Museum and is a .44 Rim Fire.

Pate explains that during the Civil War, S&W had cartridge making
facilities and was making 44/100 RF cartridges (in addition to the
22/100 and 32/100 it made for their own pistols) for Frank Wesson's
rifles used in The War. This made it a natural choice for S&W to
use in their first Army size pistol.

The Ordinance Board praised the new S&W but said it should be
in a Center Fire configuration and S&W took this to heart and
quickly switched to a CF version of the 44/100 RF and that is
the origin of the .44 S&W American cartridge.

Who actually designed the 44 American is not known but it was
likely C. D. Leets who was S&W's inside contractor for cartridge
manufacture.


Cheers!
Webb


P.S. Where did you get the pics of that particular No. 3 American?

From what I’ve read and studied the 44Rimfire chambered in the pistol was the first Frontier concept. That concept being having both a rifle/pistol combination on the frontier that chambered the same round. Basically the 44 Henry rifle initially combined with the Smith & Wesson 44 Rimfire American revolver. The 44 Rimfire was the origin of all the 44’s that followed!

Since Winchester introduced the 73’ rifle in 44WCF centerfire in 1873, this new design quickly replaced the 44 Rimfire frontier combination and introduced the FRONTIER SIX SHOOTER centerfire combo.

Very historical and scarce guns are the 44 American rimfires. It amazes me that they have not achieved more value as the Henry rifles have.

In my opinion probably the most undervalued Smith & Wesson early revolver out there!

Murph

Sorry Webb,
I missed your PS

That photo is from a recent auction in Austin Texas that I unfortunately did not win. I did document it. It’s a legit 44rf and went for $2000 plus buyers premium, tax, etc. To me that was very low.

Murph

Ivan,
I have yet to actually see one of those Turkish contract variations. They are more rare than the Americans since most left the country.

Murph

Hi There,



Well, I was curious because I was interested in that No. 3 too.
I ended up purchasing it and I'm waiting for it to be delivered.


Cheers!
Webb

Good for you Webb,
I couldn’t bid higher in lieu of having to fly there and pick it up the added cost and risk/ time, etc just didn’t make sense.I couldn’t arrange for shipping.
I did get this one though. Being delivered tomorrow. Maybe we can compare markings etc? I would appreciate that for my file.

Murph

Attached Images

IMG_7940.jpg (31.8 KB, 60 views)

Hi There,



Sure. After it gets here.


Cheers!
Webb

Just a little historical background.
The 44 rimfire Henry was actually used in the Civil War and also later in the 66’ Winchester rifle/carbine. The 66’ was also used by the Indians against Custer in the battle of little Big Horn.
I also wonder how Many Smith & Wesson 44 rimfire Americans were actually used in that battle as well.

The cartridge transitions are seen in attached photo’s.
44 Henry, 44 American, 44 Russian, 44 Colt, 44 WCF.

Later the 44 Special, and 44 Mag.

What is not photo’d and should be included is:

44 Webley, 44 Bulldog, 44 M&H, and others.

All of these cartridges spawned from the original .44 rimfire.

Finally, the transition of revolvers beginning with the American chambering the .44 rimfire and ending with the large frame double action chambering the .44 Russian and 44 WCF.

Murph

Attached Images

	IMG_8063.jpg (19.5 KB, 19 views)
	IMG_8064.jpg (32.7 KB, 33 views)
	IMG_8065.jpg (30.2 KB, 21 views)
	IMG_8067.jpg (78.9 KB, 24 views)

One of the older Fledderman Value books had a cover photo of a Remington revolver that one cylinder was for center fire and rim fire and the second cylinder was in cap and ball. With a gun like that, you could always find one kind of ammo or another! (If there were any gun shoppes to be found!)

It looked like a cross between a New Army and an 1875/8. That would be a perfect side arm if you need more power in your rifle, thing Sharp's or Reminton Rolling Block.

When the Texas Rangers got a batch if 30-40 carbines, the 45 Colt revolvers came back into popularity, most had gone to 38-40 & 44-40 before that the pair up with their 73 & 92 Winchesters.

Ivan

Ivan,
That reminds me of the early conversion revolver having a cap & ball cylinder and a cartridge cylinder combo. The hammer being machined to strike both a centerfire and Rimfire cartridge. I just can’t remember which model it was. I think it was a Starr revolver.

Murph

Hi There,





Colt made an early cartridge/cap-n-ball combo designed by Thuer.
This was a short lived front loading cartridge cylinder and a com-
plicated adapter breech section. The only saving grace with this
design was that a regular cap-n-ball cylinder could be substituted
and the revolver used as a cap-n-ball. They still had the rammer
for seating bullets. There wasn't any rim fire version made as far
as I know.


Cheers!
Webb

It was driving me nuts. I finally found a reference in the Cochran book. See attachment

I don’t have a photo but I remember the firing ping actually pivoted up for Rimfire and down for centerfire. It actually slid in a slot and locked under spring tension in either position as I remember.

It may have been a Distributor created and non factory feature that allowed the operator to use either ammo. In this case it would be the 44 Rimfire and/or the 44 American centerfire.


Murph

Attached Images

IMG_8118.jpg (33.3 KB, 24 views)

United States Arms made a revolver that fired both 44 rimfire and centerfire per Flaydermans.

The Plant, or Merwin and Bray, revolvers came with a 42 cup fire cylinder and a percussian cylinder too.

Attached Images

Screenshot_20240205_062649_Google Play Books~2.jpg (40.6 KB, 23 views)

__________________
Mark

And the Plant Revolver picture with the cap and ball cylinder along with the 42 cup fire cylinder.

Wish this set was mine.

Attached Images

	250.1.jpg (23.9 KB, 31 views)
	250.2.jpg (19.3 KB, 28 views)

__________________
Mark

Finding an unaltered 44 Rimfire American is no easy task. So many of them not unlike the Colt SAA 44 Rimfire were altered to a centerfire caliber. Simple reason was to be able to reload and shoot the gun! By 1876 centerfire reloading was a common practice. The Rimfire could not be reloaded. Most common I have found being an alteration to the 44 American centerfire cartridge initially.

However, I’ve also seen many altered to 44 Winchester simply because that round was available literally everywhere.

You can see from the photos that my example is in it’s original factory configuration. Which is pretty rare! Most are heavily beaten up from hard early frontier use.

You can’t apply the strict collector requirements for these rare examples or you’ll never be lucky enough to own one.

More often than not a degree of restoration is required.
I also have a Colt SAA 44 Rimfire that was converted to 44 WCF by modifying the hammer & hammer slot and changing the cylinder.

The ultimate results would be a marginal close shooting pistol since the 44 WCF at .427 diameter is too small for the .440 bore.
Even so I’ve seen several altered to this caliber during period of use.




Murph

Attached Images

	IMG_8086.jpg (58.8 KB, 23 views)
	IMG_8107.jpg (58.6 KB, 21 views)
	IMG_8087.jpg (52.1 KB, 20 views)

Just got really lucky and picked up this very early box of 44 Rimfire pistol ammo. Notice the original box says “FOR PISTOLS”!
I’m wondering where the 44 Henry association is actually documented.
I’ve seen plenty of redundant claims but nothing from that period.
No actual advertising or anything documented.

I’d like to actually see some documentation that prooves association between the 44 Henry rifle round and any 44 Rimfire pistol. This original box sure doesn’t support the claimed association. It clearly separates them.

Notice the original rounds are not head stamped? So they are early rounds. Pre-1883 at the latest.

I’ve also NEVER seen a 44 Henry rifle box of ammo that says FOR RIFLES AND PISTOLS?

I would think that the pistol rounds would be loaded with FFFG and the Henry rifle would be FFG.

Murph

Attached Images

	IMG_8122.jpeg (102.6 KB, 46 views)
	IMG_8123.jpeg (113.9 KB, 62 views)

Hi There,



I find it very interesting that the box displays a "Trademark" that
appears to be an "H" impression on the head of a cartridge and
the cartridge cases don't have the "Trademark" on them.

There is a lot of documentation regarding rim fire No. 3 using
.44 Henry at the factory. One of S&W's distributors, Wexel and
DeGress had offices in Mexico City and handled most of the south
of the boarder sales and purchased most of the rim fire No. 3's
made. They specifically asked for No. 3's chambered for the .44
Henry RF.

There was a small tiff between S&W and Winchester regarding WRA
.44 Henry cartridges. The Turks complained that some of the .44
cartridges would swell their heads and seriously inhibit the cylinder's
rotation. S&W responded that 10% of the Winchester made cartridges
were "defective" and swell and sometimes burst where the raised
initial was impressed.

Winchester got wind of this and wrote a dunning letter to S&W
pointing out that .44 RF cartridges meant for rifles had 26gr. of
powder and .44 RF cartridges meant for pistols had 23gr. To para-
phrase the closing, Winchester said that If S&W had any complaints,
to bring them the Winchester first.


Cheers!
Webb

Webb,
Can you provide specific references. I’m not interested in modern references or published claims without proof.
I’m interested in period references/ letters/ advertisements/ etc. Anything at all that specifically ties the 44 Henry rifle round to the Pistol.
All of my studies on the Colt SAA who also sent many 44 Rimfire pistols to Wexel FACTORY REFERENCE the 44 Rimfire only. None reference the 44 Henry.
Only modern published material make that claim.

The cases were likely swelling because they were using the wrong round. This was common during the black powder era. Just because the round chambers doesn’t mean it’s the correct cartridge for that gun.

See attached example

Murph

Attached Images

IMG_8127.jpeg (79.5 KB, 38 views)

Hi There,



Interesting statement. There are many references but the best
I can provide is to direct you to Charles Pate's book: Smith &
Wesson American Model in U.S. and Foreign Service and
consult the foot notes.


Cheers!
Webb

Webb,
The only period reference is what I have provided and that is Factory records that list 44 Rimfire not 44 Henry or 44 Henry Rimfire. Also the box that I just purchased is period reference and it clearly proves there is a difference between the 44 Henry Rimfire rifle round and the 44 Short Rimfire PISTOL round. If there wasn’t there would be no need to produce a box of Pistol rounds during that period!

What I would like to see is any document from that period that states or proves the 44 Henry was designed for use in any pistol.

So far I have found nothing. In fact I’ve found the opposite to be true. The 44 Rimfire pistol had a pistol round that was designed and engineered to be shot from the pistol platform.

The association between the 44 Rimfire Henry rifle round and the 44 Rimfire pistol is not proven. They were obviously engineered differently or there would be absolutely no reason to manufacture a box of pistol rounds in the 44 Rimfire. Since the long standing claim is “My pistol shoots the 44 Henry Flat”!

So far it’s a very long standing yarn that’s been passed by word of mouth and swallowed for many years.

Murph

Hi There,


I suggest you read the book and check the footnotes. Mr. Pate put
a lot of time into his research and can document all that he asserts
with period documentation.


Cheers!
Webb

Thanks Webb,
Did your Rimfire arrive yet? Mine did. I’m happy with it.

Murph

"I have yet to actually see one of those Turkish contract variations. They are more rare than the Americans since most left the country." I'll post a picture, but I'll be out of town tomorrow. This is the only one I've seen, and I bought it.

__________________
Mike Maher #283

Hi There,


No, not yet.


Cheers!
Webb

Colt was famous for not wanting to promote a competitor's name when marking a barrel for a caliber that included a brand name other than Colt. I am not certain that they would have recorded the rimfire SAAs as 44 Henry even if it was the same cartridge. It's very possible that they could be the same cartridge and Colt simply recorded them as "44 Rimfire" rather than promote Henry, which was out of business at that point but still associated with Winchester.

Colt factory records are usually very clear as to applicable caliber.
Most factory letters clearly state the caliber without prejudice regarding who manufactured or created the caliber.

Examples:

32 S&W.
38 S&W.
44 Russian
44 American
44 Winchester
38 Winchester
32/20 Winchester

I have documented factory letters that list these calibers on Single Action Army revolvers often times via special order.

I’ve also seen the 32 S&W stamped on the barrel of the Colt rainmaker (lightning model) and letters as such.

The only confusion I have ever documented is between a center fire and rimfire in the Newline series. However, factory records for the Newline is limited and only partial.

Yet none of the letters that I have seen even mention the Henry. They all list only. .44 rimfire as the cartridge. With an open mind that doesn’t support the Henry theory.

Pre-1890 Colt revolvers lacked caliber stamps on the barrel. Most were acid etched but special order usually lacked the caliber stamp and it was found on the trigger guard bow. However, a factory letter “clearly” states the caliber in the records.

Post 1890 SAA are all stamped on the barrel with whatever caliber is applicable and without prejudice:

32WCF
38WCF
44WCF
44RUSS
476 Eley
38 Special
44 Magnum
44 Special
etc

In depth research is about “proving” your position. I would like to prove the Henry cartridge was designed for the 44 rimfire pistol but I have absolutely NO PROOF.

Right now my research supports that the Henry cartridge was likely used due only to availability of the cartridge. It was not designed for the pistol. The .44 rimfire Pistol round was designed for the pistol.

When my box of Pistol rounds arrives I plan on comparing those rounds with proven Henry flat rounds.

Murph

Here is clear supporting proof that the 44 Henry Rimfire WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR THE PISTOL.

See photos

Notice the clear problem between the 44 Henry Flat and the 44 Short Pistol?

Case diameter?

The 44 Henry is too big to chamber in the pistol.

I have not tried it yet in my newly acquired 44 RimFire American

I will when the pistol rounds arrive but it’s obvious to me now that it will not chamber.

The .445 diameter case should not chamber in a .445 chamber that is found on the American cylinder.

However, the .440 Short pistol round at .440 case diameter should slide in perfectly!

You’d have to pound that Henry round into the Smith and Wesson to get it to chamber


Murph

Attached Images

	IMG_8147.jpg (53.6 KB, 14 views)
	IMG_8150.jpg (36.6 KB, 13 views)

You can also clearly see that the 44 American centerfire has a case diameter of .440 as well. So the 44 American centerfire mimics exactly the 44 RIMFIRE PISTOL ROUND. Not the 44 Henry.

I’d have to check the Colt SAA 44 Rimfire chamber. But I suspect the same specs would be apparent.

Murph

Attached Images

IMG_8152.jpeg (86.2 KB, 11 views)

Colt records are pretty lame. Contrary to what you said, for example, Colt Letter for a SAA in 38 WCF caliber will say "38/C".

Colt record / letters for a 38 Long Colt SAA will say the same thing. Note: Colt barrels, and earlier trigger guards, simply say 38 or in the case of a barrel 38 Colt.

I am not familiar with S&W records or letters but your example is not correct. Colt barrels are better evidence, most of the 38 WCF revolvers will say that on the barrel after a certain date (maybe 1902 ish).

__________________
S&WHF #946
S&WCA #3824

See photos.

Colt started stamping the barrel with the caliber in 1889 via PATENT CHANGE.

No such thing as absolutes. However pattern of production is easily proven.

Very clearly caliber listed and very clearly marked on the barrel.
PATTERN OF PRODUCTION.

Murph

Attached Images

	IMG_8160.jpeg (24.6 KB, 18 views)
	IMG_8159.jpg (53.7 KB, 16 views)
	IMG_8158.jpeg (66.4 KB, 14 views)
	IMG_8157.jpeg (73.3 KB, 13 views)
	IMG_8156.jpeg (118.4 KB, 10 views)

That is a very unusual letter in that it calls out 38 40 - most are like I said.

__________________
S&WHF #946
S&WCA #3824

Well,
I couldn’t wait. It’s going to be a while before my 44 Rimfire Short box of ammo gets here so I decided to try some 44 Henry Flat rounds from my collection.

This is an original Smith & Wesson 44 Rimfire American and you can clearly see from the photo that they DO NOT CHAMBER.

They both stop cold at the same place in all six chambers.

The rounds mic at .445 at the base. The chambers I have already mic’d upon arrival of the antique. They mic at .445.

A minimum of .005 undersized is standard for proper fit.

The 44 HENRY IS NOT THE CORRECT ROUND FOR THIS GUN.

I’m absolutely sure now that the pistol rounds will drop right in.

Makes me wonder about the Turkish contract guns. They may have been chambered differently.

Murph

Attached Images

	IMG_8162.jpg (81.7 KB, 12 views)
	IMG_8163.jpg (68.1 KB, 21 views)
	IMG_8164.jpg (53.0 KB, 13 views)

Hi There,


What serial number is the revolver that won't chamber the .44
Henry?

As I mentioned earlier, the .44 American was derived from the
44/100 cartridge which was used in the Frank Wesson rifles and
carbines. This was a .44 RF and pics depict it as having a pointed
bullet. I don't have any information on the specs for the 44/100
cartridge but I believe that the early No. 3 Rim Fires were cham-
bered for this round and the .44 American was just the same
cartridge in center fire form.


Cheers!
Webb

Webb,
The transition I believe from earliest 44 Rimfire was from pistol to pistol. Not from rifle to pistol.

The first Pistol I am aware of was the Hammond Bulldog in 44 Rimfire having an October 25,1864 patent date on the barrel.

See photos of pistol and documented round.

This early pistol round is basically identical dimensionally speaking with the post 1871 American 44 Rimfire pistol round.

All rifle rounds from the Winchester, Henry, Ballard, Howard, and Frank Wesson are TOO BIG to chamber in the pistol.

Specifically, the case diameter is too large! It’s documented in case specs and physically tested and proven that they won’t fit.

The only question that remains is: “ Regarding the Turkish contract guns”. “Are they actually machine chambered for the rifle round”?

We would have to try rifle rounds and see if they consistently chamber with ease.

Remember, if it is proven that the Turkish contract pistols do actually chamber the rifle rounds then the pistol round will not function safely in those guns. They would be grossly undersized and the cases would bulge and split upon discharge.

This research so far only strongly supports that the commercial guns that includes those sent to Wexel ( Mexico) were NOT CHAMBERED FOR THE HENRY RIFLE.

Murph

Attached Images

	IMG_8178.jpeg (43.3 KB, 7 views)
	IMG_8180.jpg (86.5 KB, 5 views)

Here is a Smith & Wesson, .44 Rim Fire, Turkish, serial number 2613. It has a 1 7/16" cylinder (1.4375"). The chambers Mic at .444".

U.S. Cartridges and Their Handguns, 1795 - 1975, CR Suydam, Beinfield, 1977, has three listings for the .44 RF.

P 102 (6 entries): .44 Short, Rim Fire. Head dimension is .440" or less and all six listings are shorter than 1.4375"-cylinder length.

P 104 (6 entries): .44 Henry Rim Fire, Pointed. Head dimension of one is .444" and 1.532" in length. The other five are .441" or less and these five are shorter than the 1.4375" cylinder.

P 106 (5 entries): .44 Henry Rim Fire Flat. The head dimensions are: 1 - .445"; 1 - .444"; 1 - .442 and 2 - .441". All five are shorter than the 1.4375 cylinder.

Out of 17 listings, only three .44 Rim Fire cartridges will not fit the S&W New Model #3, Turkish revolver.

Attached Images

	DSCN2453.jpg (43.9 KB, 19 views)
	DSCN2459.jpg (37.6 KB, 12 views)

__________________
Mike Maher #283

Thanks for checking your rare bird Mike.

Your chambers mic as 44 Rimfire Short pistol chambers.

See photos:

The minimum difference between the chamber inner diameter and the case outer diameter is .005 thousandths of an inch. Anything less than that is the wrong case or perhaps a damaged case.

So if your chamber measures .444 then the maximum size the case can be is .439


Only the pistol case qualifies since it continuously measures .440.

Most of the proven Henry cases mic at .444-.445 which is too big and obviously not “designed” for the .444-.445 chamber.


No grading on a curve. The case must be .005 under the chamber. That’s at a minimum. You can go up to .007 under without bulging or cracking the case upon discharge.

So if your Turkish example was designed for the Henry cartridge the chambers should all mic at .450. They don’t so it’s a pistol round.

Murph

Attached Images

	IMG_8183.jpg (50.3 KB, 9 views)
	IMG_8184.jpg (55.5 KB, 9 views)

Hi There,


Well, my No. 3 American 2nd Issue in Rim Fire came today and
I find some interesting differences. First off, the chambers mic
out at .450" - .451". Second, the cylinder is only 1.415" long
(My NM No. 3 cylinders are 1.423" in length and my early No.3
cylinder is 1.455" long).

Also what I find interesting is that the hammer and lockwork
are the 1st type; with the cylinder stop bolt controlled by the
hammer (which is unusual for a No. 3 with the serial number
in the 25,000 range). I know S&W used up a lot of their super-
ceded older design parts when making the Rim Fire models.



Cheers!
Webb

Webb,
Wow, that’s amazing. Obviously, there is a much bigger picture here. Mine is a very late 2nd issue 44 Rimfire having the late hammer in the 32,000 range.

Your chambers definitely qualify to chamber the 44 Henry and pretty much all the others including the 44 long as well except for the 44 Rimfire short pistol round.

These were very early cartridge guns so it’s possible that they were ordered specific to caliber. In other words the customer could have specified which 44 Rimfire round they wanted.

The only way to prove which 44 Rimfire round is applicable would be possibly factory records and measuring the chambers since the guns weren’t caliber marked.

Very interesting.

Murph

Hi There,


Although there wasn't any SAAMI to set the standards for a par-
ticular caliber/cartridge but they did try to make cartridges that
fit. Plus, I think we have to put things in their proper perspective.

At the end of the Civil War, cartridge making was in its early stages
and center fire cartridges were just coming out. Rim Fire cartridges
were proven effective in The War and were the major type of car-
tridge in use in the late 1860's. I don't know how many different
44 caliber firearms were available in 1869 and 1870 but there
must have been many.


Cheers!
Webb

I went through my antique cartridge collection and found a UMC 44 RIMFIRE PISTOL round. Notice the comparison with an American centerfire. Also next to a Henry round.

Notice also that the 44 American centerfire and UMC 44 RIMFIRE fit perfectly and the larger diameter Henry’s do not.

Murph

Attached Images

	IMG_8198.jpg (63.9 KB, 11 views)
	IMG_8201.jpg (62.7 KB, 10 views)
	IMG_8196.jpg (87.9 KB, 8 views)

I found a photo of what I’ve seen several times to convert an original 44 Rimfire Short “Pistol” chamber to also shoot the 44 American centerfire round. This conversion would not work with any other round but the American 44cf. This conversion has been seen and documented in published books.

Also, this conversion would not work if the chambers were originally machined to shoot the Henry Flat rifle round since the 44 American mimics the 44 Rimfire Pistol round in case dynamics.
A Henry chamber would cause the 44 American centerfire to bulge and split with discharge which would not be safe to shoot.

Murph

Attached Images

IMG_8283.jpg (59.9 KB, 12 views)

I finally found a connection between the Henry Flat and the 44 RF PISTOL. See photo.

I looked up the case specs for the US CARTRIDGE CO HENRY FLAT and it’s obviously a dual purpose cartridge having a .442 case diameter would be a tight fit in the pistol and a loose fit in the rifle but it would work!

The S&W 44 RF pistol chamber is the same as the Colt.

Murph

Attached Images

IMG_8325.jpg (49.8 KB, 13 views)

It looks like US Cartridge Co was definitely the early connection between the 44 RF Henry rifle and the 44 RF Pistol. Even though this early ad only labels Colts revolvers it definitely includes various Smith and Wesson 44 rf pistols. The adapted case would definitely chamber in the American revolver.

Murph

Attached Images

IMG_8337.jpg (54.0 KB, 10 views)

I don't know if this fits this discussion, but "The Turks had bought several thousand Henry rifles for their continual war with Russia, and for logistical reasons had the No 3s in the Henry cartridge." I need to say that there is no Smith & Wesson reference to the "Henry" part of the .44 Rim Fire cartridge. Every reference only says ".44 RF".

__________________
Mike Maher #283

Thanks Mike,
I think US Cartridge Co made the decision to manufacture a cartridge that would function in both the Henry rifle and the 44RF pistol.
I have no clue why the gun manufacturing industry didn’t match up the cartridges and guns to begin with.

This is a duplicate situation regarding the Colt SAA and the Schofield that forced the US Army to manufacture a dual purpose 45 cartridge that would function in both guns.

They really had some serious problems communicating back then.

However, the research does confirm at least one cartridge manufacturer did produce a Henry cartridge that would chamber in the pistol and that’s good enough for me.

I know this opens up a can of worms regarding lots more questions than answers but at least one is clearly answered.

So referencing the Henry cartridge to the pistol is correct just limited to US Cartridge Co being the manufacturer of the round.

I don’t know where the Turks got their ammo from. Perhaps US Cartridge Co? Or some other European source that manufactured a dual purpose cartridge that would function in both guns.

One thing is also certain. The rifle and pistol did NOT match in chamber specs.

Murph

I found absolute proof positive the 44 Henry Rifle, 66 Yellowboy, and Colt 44 Rimfire pistol were the first Frontier Rifle/Pistol combination introduced in 1875!!!
Directly from the 1875 Winchester catalog! Winchester also manufactured a dual purpose cartridge for the Henry/ Colt combo the exact year the 44 Rimfire pistol was introduced!
NO QUESTION! It’s fact.

*** This would include all Smith & Wesson 44 RF pistols. During that period You would just have to make sure you are purchasing the correct box of ammo.

Murph

Attached Images

	IMG_8345.jpg (115.2 KB, 10 views)
	IMG_8346.jpeg (96.0 KB, 12 views)