No. 3 44-40

[Jumpinjoe]

Back to the forum for more help.... continuing progress on a No. 3 supposedly made around 1878 ( 3 digit serial number - estimate by Smith & Wesson )... I rebuilt the hammer and made a working hand that functions and locks up tight and in time. I have popped off a couple primers in a empty case to check function and timing. I'm still a long way from an actual test firing and after doing a LOT of research I've come to the conclusion that it would not be prudent or safe to try to put a CASS load round through it and I had better stick with a black powder round. I'd like to get some opinions and comments if I could... as always thanks. I'm going to measure the bore and "slug " the barrel to make sure no matter what I wind up with, it will not over pressure this fine old revolver. Thanks to all

 

[iby]

Joe
A #3 44-40 would not be from 1878
More like 1886

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

.... continuing progress on a No. 3 supposedly made around 1878 ( 3 digit serial number - estimate by Smith & Wesson ) ...

What type of extractor gear/cam does your NM#3 have? Is it
the first type (rack & pinion)? Or is it one of the later systems
employed during the manufacturing years of this model.

If it chambers .44 WCF, then it is a "Frontier" model. The Fron-
tier" model didn't come out until 1885. I think, by that time,
S&W had moved away from the first type rack and pinion ex-
tractor and was using the spring loaded catch type.

I should add that the "Frontier" had its own serial number
range. That is why one finds a low serial number with the
later extractor system.


Cheers!
Webb

 

[Jumpinjoe]

Webb..thank you, that makes sense with the research that I did because the 44-40 supposedly didn't appear until the "Frontier" model, as others have said also. We contacted S&W and one of their replies was the 1878 mfg. date. It has the spring loaded type of extractor and I did a cast of the cylinder to confirm it was a true .44-40. Does anybody have a loading recommendation or where I could get black powder cartridges or do you think being a later No. 3.... would it be safe with "cowboy" loads. Thanks to all

 

[Kinman]

I do not have an original top break chambered in 44-40, I have an Uberti Schofield and a few Colts including my favorite Bisley chambered in 44-40. I use 200gr. .427 lead bullet over 30gr. of Swiss 3F with a .060 veggie wad, 1.585 OAL and a WLP primer. The Schofield repop fires very well with that load, it does require a thorough wiping down between cylinders, I use a cloth dampened with #9 Hoppes and wipe down the cylinder giving the face a good wipe will keep it operating smooth for cylinder after cylinder as well as the area around the forcing cone, otherwise the blackpowder fouling will start to bind up the cylinder rotation with tolerances of the modern firearms closer or the fact that it has not had more than a couple hundred rounds through it. I learned a trick from an old shooter years ago and apply a liberal amount of STOS lube to the hand opening as well as the bolt stop opening, that keeps any fouling from getting inside the mechanism. Those areas are usually not a problem but a little prevention goes a long way. Good luck and have fun. l

 

[stanmerrell]

I had one for a while. Wish I had not sold it...Only about 800 made. Pretty scarce gun. I loaded up some lighter loads with slow burning smokeless powder. It had no problems. Just be smart. You can check my old posts on this subject. I still have 44-40 dies, bullets, and cases, if you want them for a reasonable price.

 

[BMur]

SA OR DA

It is a Single Action correct?

Murph

 

[Jumpinjoe]

Yes Murph.... single action. The action, break open pivot, and lock up is really good. As I said I had a couple old hands with broken shafts, I calipered the shaft size finding out it was a #30 drill stock size. I made a couple hands and drilled out and low temp welded the shaft in. Grind and polish to size. I might hit Stan up for those dies and parts ..... have to see what I have rat holed back in old boxes from gun shows and rendezvous days. The gun has a deteriated nickel finish and I'm polishing the whole thing lightly to clean it up.

 

[BMur]

Proper load

Ok,
Well from original black powder manufacture catalogs circa 1890's the correct load for the PISTOL in 44/40 or 44 WCF was;

FFG POWDER, 30 grains, 200 grain 16/1 lead/tin flat nose bullet
Performance listed as 830 FPS and pressure is listed as 6500 CUP

Another catalog from Laflin & Rand measures pressure as LUP or limit under pressure taken from the cylinder. Results are basically the same.

Smokeless powder use is not a good idea as pressures can be much higher than those listed in rare early black powder catalogs.
SAAMI STANDARDS FROM 1926 Lists the 44 WCF at over double the original pistol load in CUP. So absolutely no modern ammo.

Murph

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

Another catalog from Laflin & Rand measures pressure as LUP or limit under pressure taken from the cylinder.
Murph

Are you sure about that? In the study of chamber pressures, it
was my understanding that CUP and LUP are acronyms for Cop-
per Units of Pressure and Lead Units of Pressure.


Cheers!
Webb

 

[BMur]

Laflin and Rand

Or" is a conjunction used to connect words, phrases, or clauses that represent alternatives or choices, indicating that one or both of the options are possible.

I think that Laflin & Rand were simply making it clear that the 6500 LUP was their recommended limit. In other words "DO NOT EXCEED THIS LUP READING/POWDER LOAD. "OR" "LIMIT UNDER PRESSURE". They weren't just listing the results of the powder load they were clearly defining it as their recommendation as the MAX LOAD.

It was clear to me.

Early catalogs use odd methods of defining results and recommendations probably due to old English.


Murph

 

[Kinman]

I am not Elmer Keith and have never unsuccessfully blown up a firearm. I have done my own "seat of the pants" experimentation with both .44 Russian and 44/40 smokeless loads as opposed to the tried and true black powder loads. I have done most of my experimentation with modern repop firearms before trying it out on my valuable originals. I will also for the record state that I am certainly no mathematical genius, professional or engineer in the study of pressures, etc. Solely from as how does it feel when fired, I will attest that a light smokeless load is more abrupt in the hand or felt recoil than even a stouter black powder load. The buck and roar from black powder is much "smoother" or as I like to say natural, than the abrupt, quicker recoil from smokeless. Large caliber heavy weight black powder rifles like my Sharps 45/90 are very comfortable with full tilt black powder loads, substituting smokeless to achieve the same results on target at distance means more felt recoil to the user without the satisfying smokey roar. I have not gone into intense study whether or not I can achieve the one minute of angle accuracy with black powder by substituting smokeless, some do with good results. I have one "Gemmer" style 45/70 Trapdoor converted to a half stock Hawken with double set triggers that is built on an original early 50/70 breach with a heavy black powder rifled barrel, it would be foolish to use any smokeless load in this firearm. With my Shiloh Sharps all I had to do was feel the difference in recoil with no need to switch over to smokeless having a good steady supply of Holy Black.

 

[Alk8944]

CUP and LUP are acronyms for Copper Units of Pressure and Lead Units of Pressure. CUP indicates the crusher cylinders for testing were made of Copper. and the LUP indicates the crusher cylinders were Lead. The load pressure was determined from the specific "tarage table" for each type of cylinder.

Who knows where that "Limited under pressure" BS came from, it is erroneous, it means absolutely nothing!