Winchester 1873 Ammo Question

[gfors]

A friend has an original 1873, in .44-40, that he wants to use to still hunt mulies and elk. I've not seen the rifle, but apparently it's in excellent mechanical condition. There aren't a lot of commercial cartouche offerings out there. LGS has only cowboy action ammo. On-line, I can find Winchester and Buffalo Bore, in hotter loadings, for hunting use, which is what he wants to do with the rifle. Leaving aside whether or not this is enough gun for deer--maybe--elk--I highly doubt it, are the hotter rounds safe for the "gun that won the West"?
Thank you for your help!
George

 

[DWalt]

The Model 1873 has a very weak action designed around the use of black powder ammunition as compared to Winchester's later lever action rifle designs such as the Model 1886 and the Model 1892. Therefore, it is not advisable to use cartridges loaded beyond standard SAAMI specifications in a Model 1873. Back in the earlier 20th century, the ammunition manufacturers offered high-velocity versions of .44-40, .38-40, and .32-20 cartridges, but always with the warning that they should not be used in Model 1873 rifles. That was sound advice. For Mulies and Elk, a caliber more powerful than any .44-40 loading would be advisable, completely aside from the rifle used.

 

[gwpercle]

Don't hot rod the 1873's weak toggle link action .
Stay with standard loads and get close to your quarry .

The 1892 or 1894 actions would be better suited to "hotter" loads .

Don't push old guns with weak actions ... common sense thing .
Gary

 

[gfors]

The Model 1873 has a very weak action designed around the use of black powder ammunition as compared to Winchester's later lever action rifle designs such as the Model 1886 and the Model 1892. Therefore, it is not advisable to use cartridges loaded beyond standard SAAMI specifications in a Model 1873. Back in the earlier 20th century, the ammunition manufacturers offered high-velocity versions of .44-40, .38-40, and .32-20 cartridges, but always with the warning that they should not be used in Model 1873 rifles. That was sound advice.

Are the cowboy loads (205 grains @ 725fps) appropriate for the 1873?

 

[cowboy4evr]

You could contact Accurate Powder Co for loading advice . I’ve always had good luck when I did , regards Paul

 

[DWalt]

Are the cowboy loads (205 grains @ 725fps) appropriate for the 1873?

Yes. If I had an 1873 (At one time I had several of them but no longer do), I would use only Cowboy loads or reloads of about the same ballistics. There are many Cowboy shooters who use both original and replica 1873s. Keep in mind that Cowboy Action shooters DO NOT use heavy loads, only light loads, as CAS is a timed game and shooters need to recover from recoil very quickly to keep their time down. And you can't do that if you are shooting heavy loads.

 

[gfors]

Thanks, DWalt!
I’ll let him know.

 

[Eltioloco]

The factory load with black powder had a 210 grain bullet exiting the muzzle at 1,200 FPS. I wouldn’t want to shoot a big muley with that, although they sure did back in the day. Winchester advertised that the .44 WCF was good for deer out to 300 yards.
John Kort did a lot of research on the old loads in the .44-40. It’s worth a read.
Ken

 

[Texas Star]

I guess if you get in close enough, a weak .44-40 load will kill.

But I really don't think it's sportsmanlike to use a rifle like that on game today. Is this even legal in states that have elk?

I think the 6.5X55mm is about minimum, with .270 and .30-06 excellent, and a .338 isn't out of place.

In Africa, animals of elk size are often shot with the .375 H&H Magnum or the 9.3X62mm.

I know that Grand Duke Alexis of Russia and others shot bison from horseback with .44 Russian revolvers. But I doubt they got many really clean kills.

Elmer Keith shot cattle and horses with .45 Colt revolvers, but at very close range and in dire emergencies. Charles Askins shot maverick Indian horses with handguns, but didn't detail the results.

Have you read "Sixguns"? Keith told of a man using a Colt .45 with 7.5 inch barrel and old BP loads who killed an erect grizzly about to charge him. I mention that the bear was standing because I think that facilitated making a fatal shot on it. The .45 was probably firing a 250 grain lead bullet at a nominal 910 FPS. Maybe less, in such cold weather. I think the gun was worn under his coat, so wouldn't have chilled a lot.

I know that some hunt with a bow and arrow or maybe even with an atlatl. I just don't think it's wise, today. Yes, javelins from atlatls killed mammoths and giant ground sloths. And probably , saber-toothed cats, American lions, and dire wolves. But would you rely on that armament now? American lions were considerably larger than modern African lions, Panthera leo.

I read that a man killed a grizzly with 17 shots from a 1873 Winchester. I'm surprised the bear let him live long enough to do that! He must have been a miserable shot.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

The Model 1873 has a very weak action designed around the use of black powder ammunition as compared to Winchester's later lever action rifle designs such as the Model 1886 and the Model 1892. Therefore, it is not advisable to use cartridges loaded beyond standard SAAMI specifications in a Model 1873. Back in the earlier 20th century, the ammunition manufacturers offered high-velocity versions of .44-40, .38-40, and .32-20 cartridges, but always with the warning that they should not be used in Model 1873 rifles. That was sound advice. For Mulies and Elk, a caliber more powerful than any .44-40 loading would be advisable, completely aside from the rifle used.

Exactly^^^^.

Also, probably better check state wildlife regulations. I doubt that the .44-40 cartridge is allowed for big game animals in Colorado.

 

[gfors]

I just dug up my big game regs. It looks like an 1873 would be pushed beyond its limits, trying to “make power”.
Thanks for the replies, everyone.

 

[Ethang]

It's a really good thing that all of those deer, bears and elk, and men killed in years past did not understand that they died from weak and underpowered loads. If they had only known that original spec 44/40 loads were not sportsmanlike enough to actually kill them they might have revolted. Lord knows a lead 44 caliber slug though the vitals won't kill modern animals....

 

[Peak53]

Colorado's big game laws are designed to provide as ethical a kill as possible, hence the required 1000 ft lbs energy at 100 yards. There is no doubt that an original 44-40 load would kill a mule deer or even an elk, but how far did you have to follow the blood trail and how many got lost in the process? My quick check of ballistics showed that the cartridge has only about half the required energy at 100 yds.

 

[Alpo]

My first question is when was the gun made? The 1873 Winchester was made up into the 30s - well into the smokeless powder era.



If the gun is new enough, it is certainly safe with the Remington jacketed soft point hunting loads. I wouldn't shoot it with Buffalo Bore ammo, but that's just me.


It constantly amazes me that people seem to believe that gun models that were made in the 1870s are only safe with the puny *** "cowboy ammo". That if you were to use standard, full power ammunition, you will blow your gun up. That is nonsense. It's like insisting that's your Victory model M&P should only be fired with target wadcutters - that to shoot full power hundred and fifty-eight grain RN ammo - the stuff it was designed for - is dangerous. Yes, shooting smokeless in a gun made in 1879 is, in my opinion, asking for trouble. But shooting full power 44/40 in a rifle made in 1920 is perfectly safe.


So - how old is this gun?

 

[Wyo]

Exactly^^^^.

Also, probably better check state wildlife regulations. I doubt that the .44-40 cartridge is allowed for big game animals in Colorado.

The 44/40 Win. is legal for big game in Wyoming, largely due, I think, to regulations written by someone who didn’t really understand what they were allowing. We also allow the 38/40, the Colt 45, the .357 Magnum and the 38 Special. Go figure. That said, a caseful of 2F black powder or Pyrodex P under a 200 gr. cast bullet will get you 1300 fps in a rifle barrel and should be safe in any 1873 in decent shape. That will kill deer and antelope pretty well out to 100 yds or so. I would be leery about using it on anything larger.

 

[mauser9]

Thought the 1873 model was discontinued in 1919 by Winchester. Hence all the 1892-94 models used in the phony old cowboy flicks in the 50s-60s.

 

[leonardocarrillo]

In the practice of sport hunting the number one rule is to avoid the suffering of the animal, today we have many calibers to choose the one that best suits our needs.
There are weapons and calibers that in the past were used in tasks for which they were not the most suitable but it was for reasons of survival or because there was not much to choose from.
A Winchester 1873 is a great rifle to have and is part of the story, but it was manufactured to use cartridges loaded with black powder is fun to shoot in the shooting range but for a hunt we can choose other weapons and more current calibers.
Sorry if my text is not clear but I do not speak English and use a translator.
Thank you.

 

[Texas Star]

An arrow doesn't kill by energy. It kills by exsanguination.
Comparing an arrow to a bullet is like comparing a Kiwi fruit to a tangerine.

 

[gfors]

Colorado's big game laws are designed to provide as ethical a kill as possible, hence the required 1000 ft lbs energy at 100 yards. There is no doubt that an original 44-40 load would kill a mule deer or even an elk, but how far did you have to follow the blood trail and how many got lost in the process? My quick check of ballistics showed that the cartridge has only about half the required energy at 100 yds.

And, yet, handguns, with a a minimum 4" barrel, using at least a 6mm bullet, generating a minimum 550 ft lbs. at 50 yards ARE allowed. I'm not sure I understand the thinking. Its not OK to use a "weak" rifle but a handgun, making less than 1/2 the energy of the rifle is allowed?!? I guess most guys carrying a sidearm, do so for a backup.

Anyone hunting big game with a handgun, or bow, for that matter, would still have some ethical/sportsman's issues to deal with, I would think.
As far as arrows causing death by exsanguination, versus a bullet killing by shock...isn't a double lung shot from a rifle meant to do most of its damage by exsanguination?
just curious, as I've done a bit of hunting, but never really examined the terminal ballistics of it all.
I stopped bow-hunting years ago, because, for me, it doesn't seem like a humane way to kill a noble animal, unless you're William Tell, with arrow placement. I never was.

 

[Peak53]

And, yet, handguns, with a a minimum 4" barrel, using at least a 6mm bullet, generating a minimum 550 ft lbs. at 50 yards ARE allowed. I'm not sure I understand the thinking. Its not OK to use a "weak" rifle but a handgun, making less than 1/2 the energy of the rifle is allowed?!? I guess most guys carrying a sidearm, do so for a backup.

I just KNEW I should have kept my trap shut Good question. I suppose they allow the lighter handgun because one wouldn't (shouldn't?) be shooting that at 100 yds. If you have all that barrel out there on a rifle, the temptation would be to take a longer shot. Just don't know. BTW, I believe that getting a small caliber 4" handgun up to 550 ft lbs at 50 yards would be quite a task. If I'm not mistaken, it takes a quite heavy .357 at a minimum to achieve that. Maybe someone can enlighten us.

On a side note, I did manage to take a mature mule deer buck this year with a muzzleloader. My first with that manner of take. That .50 cal 223 grain conical bullet produces over 1600 ft lbs at 100 yards. At 60 yards the bullet demolished a shoulder and went through both lungs. No tracking necessary.