.429 bullets in 44-40, OK?

[Quirt Evans]

A while back I bought a box of "Ultramax" cowboy ammo in.44Spl.
Pulled some bullets,, they were .427, they didn't work so good in the .44Mag, it wanted some .429>.430s.

 

[arakboss]

A while back I bought a box of "Ultramax" cowboy ammo in.44Spl.
Pulled some bullets,, they were .427, they didn't work so good in the .44Mag.

Interesting, some of the old rifles had slightly smaller bores. I know that was the case for the older 44-40 firearms. I believe the Rossi rifles, like my rossi 92, all have the larger bore allowing them to share barrels for their 44-40 and 44mag rifle lines.

 

[oremike]

The shoulder angle is very slight (4°), and it headspaces off the rim. What harm would there be if you had a cartridge that was slightly shorter than the point where the shoulder begins on the 44-40 cartridge?


View attachment 1054172

You can make whatever you wish but I'm saying there is no 44-40 Special. If you load a bullet that fits the fat part of the case as you seguest it will be bigger than the barrel bore but you knew that already, right?

 

[Capn Jack]

Doesn't anyone use a ball gauge anymore?

 

[arakboss]

You can make whatever you wish but I'm saying there is no 44-40 Special. If you load a bullet that fits the fat part of the case as you seguest it will be bigger than the barrel bore but you knew that already, right?

Understood about no 44-40 special existing.

44spl appears to have the same neck diameter as the 44-40 case just prior to the shoulder. My thought was that if I trimmed some 44spl cases to roughly .927 length and powder coated the cases to bring the 44spl base diameter up closer to the 44-40 case base diameter that they might work in the 44-40 chamber? I am not sure how the powder coat would react in a sizing die or being fired in the chamber. Powder coat holds up well on bullets so my guess is, it might hold up in chamber too.

Cutting down 8x57JRS cases might work too.

I guess it would be a bit of a wildcat cartridge.

 

[arakboss]

Understood about no 44-40 special existing.

44spl appears to have the same neck diameter as the 44-40 case just prior to the shoulder. My thought was that if I trimmed some 44spl cases to roughly .927 length and powder coated the cases to bring the 44spl base diameter up closer to the 44-40 case base diameter that they might work in the 44-40 chamber? I am not sure how the powder coat would react in a sizing die or being fired in the chamber. Powder coat holds up well on bullets so my guess is, it might hold up in chamber too.

Cutting down 8x57JRS cases might work too.

I guess it would be a bit of a wildcat cartridge.


View attachment 1054235


View attachment 1054231

I could trim the 44spl case a little longer than .927 to allow for the crimped area of the mouth to enter in to the portion of the 44-40 chamber where the 44-40 case shoulder would normally reside. As long as the crimp was at a angle greater than 4 degrees it should fit in to that portion of the chamber.

 

[oremike]

The 44 Special case body and rim is smaller than the 44-40 so they may not get a fireing pin strike and if they do they will probably split and stick in the chamber.

 

[arakboss]

The 44 Special case body and rim is smaller than the 44-40 so they may not get a fireing pin strike and if they do they will probably split and stick in the chamber.

I am going to sacrifice a couple of virgin Starline 44mag cases and powder coat them tonight. They currently measure .451

I will put on a thick fairly thick coat of powder primer and topcoat and see how close to .469 I can get them.

 

[oremike]

I see in the classifieds here 44-40 ammo so that would get you shooting plus give you the proper brass for reloading. Just go gently the brass is thin and with that shoulder will want to buckle. Defiantly a case I like to seat and crimp in sperate steps.

 

[gmerkt]

Re. bore size in "modern" .44-40's. I've owned two such things, (1) Ruger Vaquero and (2) Smith & Wesson Model 544 Texas Wagon Train commemorative.

Both of the above were made in fairly small numbers. Both companies didn't want to go to the trouble of making a proper .44-40 barrel, and both guns had .429 bores. The chambers in both guns were undersized to make SAAMI specs. The Ruger had about .426; the Smith about .428. In theory, chamber throats should be not smaller than the bore size, preferably a bit larger.

I didn't fire either gun all that much, they were kind of a novelty item for me. The .44-40 ammo that I handloaded for them used proper .44-40 sized bullets, both cast lead and Remington SP, which was still being made at the time. I didn't have any problems with the shooting of my handloads, but then again, I didn't shoot them all that much. The problems arose from the handloading process in the way of getting the various components to work together in harmony.

Aside from slightly undersized chamber throats, the Smith & Wesson Model 544 had an issue with the extractor. They used a .44 Spec / Magnum extractor, which is too small to properly engage the larger rims of the .44-40 cartridge. Which I had to modify. And which a Smith collector would now probably excoriate me for. But at the time, I didn't care, and when I later sold it, the mod either wasn't noticed or the buyer didn't care. The fact that a wrong extractor was used at the factory makes me think Smith & Wesson didn't expect buyers to actually shoot them.

Years ago, I had a Colt SAA .357 NRA commem. that I got in a deal. That was another one than I think the factory never expected anyone to fire. And it lead me to believe that just maybe firearm makers saved up under or over spec parts that bilged out of regular production and reserved them for assembling in commemorative guns.

The Smith Model 544 might be the only .44-40 double action revolver made since WW2, I'm not sure but I can't think of another one. A total of 4,782 were made. They were made in 1986. I used to see one now and then lingering on a table at gun shows. At the time, they weren't all that sought after. Although it was a commem. gun, I bought mine to shoot if only occasionally.

When I owned it, I didn't realize that the Ruger Vaquero was a fairly unusual gun in .44-40. As I recall, it had a 5-1/2 in. bbl., and only about 1,000 of them were made like that. I think total production was a bit over 5,000 some.

More recently, I had a pair Ruger Vaqueros in .38-40. Those had a proper bore, how hard is it to make a .400 when you're also turning out .40 S&W barrels? And correspondingly proper chamber throats. These were convertible models that also came with a second cylinder in .40 S&W. That cartridge didn't excite me very much, but shooting the .38-40 with modern handloads in these guns was dreamy. Previously, I'd never owned a .38-40 anything and always had the thought it was a clunky, even ugly cartridge. With respect to the Rugers, I was wrong. Through experimentation, I found a Vihta Vuori powder that turned out to be perfect for it.

 

[arakboss]

Re. bore size in "modern" .44-40's. I've owned two such things, (1) Ruger Vaquero and (2) Smith & Wesson Model 544 Texas Wagon Train commemorative.

Both of the above were made in fairly small numbers. Both companies didn't want to go to the trouble of making a proper .44-40 barrel, and both guns had .429 bores. The chambers in both guns were undersized to make SAAMI specs. The Ruger had about .426; the Smith about .428. In theory, chamber throats should be not smaller than the bore size, preferably a bit larger.

I didn't fire either gun all that much, they were kind of a novelty item for me. The .44-40 ammo that I handloaded for them used proper .44-40 sized bullets, both cast lead and Remington SP, which was still being made at the time. I didn't have any problems with the shooting of my handloads, but then again, I didn't shoot them all that much. The problems arose from the handloading process in the way of getting the various components to work together in harmony.

Aside from slightly undersized chamber throats, the Smith & Wesson Model 544 had an issue with the extractor. They used a .44 Spec / Magnum extractor, which is too small to properly engage the larger rims of the .44-40 cartridge. Which I had to modify. And which a Smith collector would now probably excoriate me for. But at the time, I didn't care, and when I later sold it, the mod either wasn't noticed or the buyer didn't care. The fact that a wrong extractor was used at the factory makes me think Smith & Wesson didn't expect buyers to actually shoot them.

Years ago, I had a Colt SAA .357 NRA commem. that I got in a deal. That was another one than I think the factory never expected anyone to fire. And it lead me to believe that just maybe firearm makers saved up under or over spec parts that bilged out of regular production and reserved them for assembling in commemorative guns.

The Smith Model 544 might be the only .44-40 double action revolver made since WW2, I'm not sure but I can't think of another one. A total of 4,782 were made. They were made in 1986. I used to see one now and then lingering on a table at gun shows. At the time, they weren't all that sought after. Although it was a commem. gun, I bought mine to shoot if only occasionally.

When I owned it, I didn't realize that the Ruger Vaquero was a fairly unusual gun in .44-40. As I recall, it had a 5-1/2 in. bbl., and only about 1,000 of them were made like that. I think total production was a bit over 5,000 some.

More recently, I had a pair Ruger Vaqueros in .38-40. Those had a proper bore, how hard is it to make a .400 when you're also turning out .40 S&W barrels? And correspondingly proper chamber throats. These were convertible models that also came with a second cylinder in .40 S&W. That cartridge didn't excite me very much, but shooting the .38-40 with modern handloads in these guns was dreamy. Previously, I'd never owned a .38-40 anything and always had the thought it was a clunky, even ugly cartridge. With respect to the Rugers, I was wrong. Through experimentation, I found a Vihta Vuori powder that turned out to be perfect for it.

I wouldn't be surprised if Rossi used the same extractor in their 44-40 and 44 mag rifles to save money. If they do that could work out in my favor if I figured out how to use 44spl/44mag brass in my 44-40 rifle.

 

[41mag]

25+ years ago I loaded some 44-40 lead up after what seemed like considerable study & inevitable friends' advise, for an early 629 load. Got poor accuracy & extreme leading. Musta left out some part of the equation. I spent HOURS trying to clean the barrel.

The boolit caster finally admitted he had 'maybe' done something in error to leave the lead too soft. The factory advised (after THEY had to clean it) to "use better bullet heads".

Good luck.

 

[arakboss]

25+ years ago I loaded some 44-40 lead up after what seemed like considerable study & inevitable friends' advise, for an early 629 load. Got poor accuracy & extreme leading. Musta left out some part of the equation. I spent HOURS trying to clean the barrel.

The boolit caster finally admitted he had 'maybe' done something in error to leave the lead too soft. The factory advised (after THEY had to clean it) to "use better bullet heads".

Good luck.

I plan on using powder coated bullets, hopefully that will prevent leading issues.

 

[arakboss]

One coat increased the diameter from .451 to .459, two coats increased the diameter to .472

One coat is on left, two coats is on right.





The thickness I needed at the base of the case is definitely there with two coats but the coating thickness exist all the way to the case mouth.

The problem I anticipate having is too much thickness towards the mouth of case. I don't think this will work unless I sand off material near the case mouth so that each case will fit in the chamber. If I knew I could get 20 plus loads out of each piece of brass, it might be worth it.

I think I am going to try and fireform a raw case and see how well it forms to the chamber.

 

[Savvy_Jack]

I have read that modern 44-40 rifle bores are designed for .429 diameter bullets. Does that sound right and what do you believe would be considered modern 1900s, 2000s?

With the exception of maybe Winchester, most...if not all other "current" non-antique rifles use .429" bores. The twist may be different than the 44 Mag .429" bore barrels....but .429" they should be!

Early 44-40 rifles bores , thru the early 1900's, ranged anywhere from .424" to .433". To make matters worse, some newer modern rifle chambers, especially revolvers, were cut smaller and the .429" bullets with the thicker RP brass would not chamber.

trying to cram a .431" 44 Mag bullet into the chamber (if it fit) and shot through a .424" bore is asking for trouble. Soft lead will squeeze down without much overpressure to the chamber but hard lead and jacketed bullets can ruin your day.

Even so, rifles considered to have "strong actions" like the Model 92' and Marlin variants can withstand pretty high pressures, 22,000cup max rather than the weaker 13,000cup max for the Winchester 73' and revolver types.

Dissected pre-1884 undheadstamped cases yielded lead bullets as small as .424" and other variants as high as .427". The official bullet and chamber neck diameter is ".427"". All of my modern firearms are .429" as well as my Marlin made in 1891. I use .428" wheel weight lead and .430 44 special and mag jacketed bullets as well as Winchester's .4255" JSP bullets. Remington's 44-40 JSP bullets are .426"

Here is some pretty good information about handloading the 44-40. https://sites.google.com/view/44winchester/chasing-the-44-40/handloading?authuser=0

There is an entire website dedicated to the 44-40 here: https://sites.google.com/view/44winchester/chasing-the-44-40

 

[arakboss]

One coat increased the diameter from .451 to .459, two coats increased the diameter to .472

One coat is on left, two coats is on right.

View attachment 1054275

View attachment 1054274

The thickness I needed at the base of the case is definitely there with two coats but the coating thickness exist all the way to the case mouth.

The problem I anticipate having is too much thickness towards the mouth of case. I don't think this will work unless I sand off material near the case mouth so that each case will fit in the chamber. If I knew I could get 20 plus loads out of each piece of brass, it might be worth it.

I think I am going to try and fireform a raw case and see how well it forms to the chamber.

I have had these two cases sitting in my lunch sack for a while now. I am going to fire up the wife's dremel tool this weekend and cut them down to around .900 in length (possibly shorter). After they are cut down, I will try to size them with the 44-40 sizing die. If they size correctly, I will attempt to chamber an empty case in my rifle. If the case chambers and extracts, then I will worry about the neck thickness and whether I can seat a bullet or not.

 

[arakboss]

One coat increased the diameter from .451 to .459, two coats increased the diameter to .472

One coat is on left, two coats is on right.

View attachment 1054275

View attachment 1054274

The thickness I needed at the base of the case is definitely there with two coats but the coating thickness exist all the way to the case mouth.

The problem I anticipate having is too much thickness towards the mouth of case. I don't think this will work unless I sand off material near the case mouth so that each case will fit in the chamber. If I knew I could get 20 plus loads out of each piece of brass, it might be worth it.

I think I am going to try and fireform a raw case and see how well it forms to the chamber.

Update, I have not tried fire forming a raw case yet but I think the best chances of it working without splitting the case would be to anneal the entire case down to near the case head.