44/ 40 short stroke vs 45 colt

[Dee Mak Jack, SASS #55905]

Does the 44/40 cartridge function as well in a short stroked action as the straight walled 45 colt ?

[Colt McAllister]

The stroke will be same for both of them. The 44-40 will probaly work better because of the bottle neck case. Less blow back in the action. The draw back to 44-40's is the ammo is harder to load do to the botle neck cases and I've seen my share of 44-40 Ubertis have chamber problems that need fixed. Plus I've seen some shooters have to go to different sized bullets for their 44-40 73's than they run in their pistols.

 

45's seem you just jam a bulletin the case and go.

[Driftwood Johnson, SASS #38283]

The draw back to 44-40's is the ammo is harder to load do to the botle neck cases and I've seen my share of 44-40 Ubertis have chamber problems that need fixed. Plus I've seen some shooters have to go to different sized bullets for their 44-40 73's than they run in their pistols.

 

Oh dear. Not to be persnickity, but it is not the bottle neck that causes problems with reloading 44-40. It is the thinness of the brass at the case mouth. Most 44-40 brass runs only about .007 thick at the case mouth, most 45 Colt brass runs about .012 thick at the case mouth. Ram a 44-40 case that is misaligned in the shell holder into the bottom of the decap/sizing die and it will crumple because the neck is so thin. The thicker 45 Colt case will shrug off the same blow. Same with problems seating bullets and crimping. The thinner brass is less tolerant of poor bullet line up or a poorly adjusted seating/crimp die. That's what causes most problems seating and crimping with 44-40. The thicker case of the 45 Colt will just bulldoze its way into the lead if things are not adjusted perfectly, the thinner 44-40 brass will crumple.

 

44-40 is not difficult to load, but you have to be more careful than with 45 Colt, and run a little bit slower so you can stop the stroke if you feel a case strike the bottom of the decap/sizing die.

 

It is also that same thinness of the brass that makes the 44-40 seal so will in the chamber, it has nothing to do with the bottleneck shape. High pressure gas has no problem going around a corner, and the bottleneck of the 44-40 is so slight that it does not make a bit of difference.

[Big Sage, SASS #49891 Life]

One thing for sure....short stroke or not, 44-40 makes a bigger boom with BP than the .45. Thats where the bottleneck really helps.

[Rye Miles #13621]

I can tell no difference in the action of a rifle with a ss in .45 or .44-40. All I know is I switched to all .44-40 and my 2 -73's work great. Never a problem loading the .44-40 either but like Driftwood said ya just hafta be a little more careful. Rye

[Jefro, SASS#69420]

I can tell no difference in the action of a rifle with a ss in .45 or .44-40. All I know is I switched to all .44-40 and my 2 -73's work great. Never a problem loading the .44-40 either but like Driftwood said ya just hafta be a little more careful. Rye

Yep, the 44/40 is a much better cartridge in the rifle. Good Luck

 

 

Jefro Relax-Enjoy

[Noz]

When I first started with 44-40 I had baby kitties with the cases. As experience grew the problem lessened and now I'll have a case problem very infrequently. I just finished my winter reloading. I loaded over 1800 cases without a failure.

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

Got both, run both with good success and not bad speed. 3rd Generation short strokes and aluminum carriers in both chamberings. I save the .45 Colt for smokeless only now, after fighting trying to run BP thru it for about 4 years. BP now goes in my .44-40 only, where it runs cleaner (in the action) than smokeless loads in .45 Colt rifle..

 

.44-40 responds to short stroking almost exactly the same as .45 Colt does. I wouldn't put a 5th gen super-short kit in a .44-40 any more than I would a .45 Colt.

 

Good luck, GJ

[Colt McAllister]

Oh dear. Not to be persnickity, but it is not the bottle neck that causes problems with reloading 44-40. It is the thinness of the brass at the case mouth. Most 44-40 brass runs only about .007 thick at the case mouth, most 45 Colt brass runs about .012 thick at the case mouth. Ram a 44-40 case that is misaligned in the shell holder into the bottom of the decap/sizing die and it will crumple because the neck is so thin. The thicker 45 Colt case will shrug off the same blow. Same with problems seating bullets and crimping. The thinner brass is less tolerant of poor bullet line up or a poorly adjusted seating/crimp die. That's what causes most problems seating and crimping with 44-40. The thicker case of the 45 Colt will just bulldoze its way into the lead if things are not adjusted perfectly, the thinner 44-40 brass will crumple.

 

44-40 is not difficult to load, but you have to be more careful than with 45 Colt, and run a little bit slower so you can stop the stroke if you feel a case strike the bottom of the decap/sizing die.

 

It is also that same thinness of the brass that makes the 44-40 seal so will in the chamber, it has nothing to do with the bottleneck shape. High pressure gas has no problem going around a corner, and the bottleneck of the 44-40 is so slight that it does not make a bit of difference.

 

I'm glad you can measure the thickness of a 44-40 case at the mouth. Without boring him with details, your answer was a long winded version that proved my point. 44-40 is more of a pain to reload than a 45 colt because of your answers.

 

Do you want the exact number of 73's and 66's chambered in 44-40 I have to pull the barrels on so I can ream the chambers to make them run right versus the rifles chambered in 45 Colt?

[Pulp, SASS#28319]

So the .44-40 would be easier to reload if Driftwood hadn't posted?

[Jefro, SASS#69420]

So the .44-40 would be easier to reload if Driftwood hadn't posted?

Ain't sure what that means but I do reload both and don't have any problem with either. Just like any other caliber, once you get your dies set up correctly they should all run smooth. During initial set up I did crush a couple of cases, since then I've loaded thousands of rounds with no issues. Like DJ said if you feel a case misalinged stop and get it right, but that applies to all calibers .38, 44/40, .45. I can load 44/40 just as fast as I can the .45. Good Luck

 

Jefro Relax-Enjoy

[Trailrider #896]

Howdy, Pards,

The only problem with .44-40 chambers I ever run into was in my Ruger OM Vaqueros. Once I got those straightened out (between Ruger and a very great gunsmith), I've never had problems with .44-40 in rifles. (Except for an original Winchester '73 that has a .434" barrel, which I don't shoot anyway.) Yes, you have to be somewhat more careful about getting the alignment of the cases going into the dies than, say .45 LC, but that is a small price to pay for the better reliability in feeding in repeating rifles.

 

Happy Holidays to all! Welcome home to our troops from Iraq. Godspeed to those still in harm's way in the defense of Freedom everywhere! God Bless America!

 

Your Pard,

[Adirondack Jack, SASS #53440]

.44-40 works great once ya learn how and get it worked out. .45 Colt works 99% as well even if yer a novice reloader. A properly timed rifle ya won't know the difference except the .45 will need cleaning once in a while, even with smokeless, and the .44-40 will too (maybe twice for .44-40 compared to 3 times for .45), if ya wanna keep it running slick and fast.

[Flint 976]

The 44-40 feeds better than a 45 Colt in a rifle regardless of the stroke, the bottleneck shape being the advantage

 

The thickness of the WCF case varies by the maker, Winchester seems to be the thinnest, Starline a bit more, and Remington thickest. Adjusting to that is accomplished by picking the bulet diameter that allows the cartridge to chamber, which seems to be more of an issue in a revolver than a rifle. I had to finish ream the chambers on my Colt SAA's to accept the ammo with even a .427 bullet except in W-W brass.

[Adirondack Jack, SASS #53440]

The 44-40 feeds better than a 45 Colt in a rifle regardless of the stroke, the bottleneck shape being the advantage

 

The thickness of the WCF case varies by the maker, Winchester seems to be the thinnest, Starline a bit more, and Remington thickest. Adjusting to that is accomplished by picking the bulet diameter that allows the cartridge to chamber, which seems to be more of an issue in a revolver than a rifle. I had to finish ream the chambers on my Colt SAA's to accept the ammo with even a .427 bullet except in W-W brass.

 

"feeds better" if the rifle is out of time. A properly timed .45 using rnfp bullets will run flat out as fast as any '73, and you can't FEEL the round cycle.

[Nate Kiowa Jones #6765]

"feeds better" if the rifle is out of time. A properly timed .45 using rnfp bullets will run flat out as fast as any '73, and you can't FEEL the round cycle.

 

 

AJ,

I think his point was bottlenecks always feed better than straightwalls in not just 73's but all the rifles we use. That is because you have a small bullet going into a large hole funneling down.

[Rockridge,SASS #8763]

Oh dear. Not to be persnickity, but it is not the bottle neck that causes problems with reloading 44-40. It is the thinness of the brass at the case mouth. Most 44-40 brass runs only about .007 thick at the case mouth, most 45 Colt brass runs about .012 thick at the case mouth. Ram a 44-40 case that is misaligned in the shell holder into the bottom of the decap/sizing die and it will crumple because the neck is so thin. The thicker 45 Colt case will shrug off the same blow. Same with problems seating bullets and crimping. The thinner brass is less tolerant of poor bullet line up or a poorly adjusted seating/crimp die. That's what causes most problems seating and crimping with 44-40. The thicker case of the 45 Colt will just bulldoze its way into the lead if things are not adjusted perfectly, the thinner 44-40 brass will crumple.

 

44-40 is not difficult to load, but you have to be more careful than with 45 Colt, and run a little bit slower so you can stop the stroke if you feel a case strike the bottom of the decap/sizing die.

 

It is also that same thinness of the brass that makes the 44-40 seal so will in the chamber, it has nothing to do with the bottleneck shape. High pressure gas has no problem going around a corner, and the bottleneck of the 44-40 is so slight that it does not make a bit of difference.

 

The WCF cartridges are definitely better for rifles - they were designed for them and they are designed to seal the chamber and keep the crap out of the action - it works. This is especially important shooting BP and it's the reason there were no .45 LC Winchesters in the day.

 

As to loading - no appreciable problem. I load Lots of 32 wcf, 38 wcf and 44 wcf ammo, the 44 wcf is the easiest of the bunch but none present a problem if you know the secret...... Back out your seating die so it only seats the bullet and does NOT crimp the case. Crimp your cases with a Lee Factory Crimp collet die. You'll never collapse or bulge another case shoulder. It's that simple. I load all this stuff on a 650 Dillon with the crimp die in the last position, works flawlessly.

 

Only other caution is to not use too much lube or you can get (hydraulic) grease wrinkles on the cases, no real harm, just don't look as pretty.

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

Even better - crimp .44-40 with a Redding Profile Crimp die. Does a better job of crimping and removing any bulges in the neck. Lee FCD does ok, just does not have the adjustment range to get a really tight crimp for BP.

 

Good luck, GJ

[Rockridge,SASS #8763]

Even better - crimp .44-40 with a Redding Profile Crimp die. Does a better job of crimping and removing any bulges in the neck. Lee FCD does ok, just does not have the adjustment range to get a really tight crimp for BP.

 

Good luck, GJ

 

I'd strongly disagree with that statement - I've has ZERO Problems with BP and the factory crimp die applies no downward pressure on the shoulders, which is what causes them to bulge.

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

Not worth arguing with someone who really has not examined how much better the Redding profile crimp die is.

 

Good luck, GJ

[Lefty Dude, SASS # 51223]

This is a no Brainer, Pards.

 

Dash cartridges in the Winchester 73 Rules the Roost.

 

All others are second.

 

No contest here.

[Driftwood Johnson, SASS #38283]

So am I going to get in trouble now if I mention that the reason no rifles were chambered for 45 Colt in the 19th Century was that the rim of the early 45s was too small for an extractor to get a grip on? Nothing to do with Black Powder? Can you imagine trying to extract this cartridge from a rifle?

 

Early 45 Colt Cartridge

 

Funny thing is, I have five rifles chambered for 44-40. Two Winchesters, a Marlin, and two Ubertis. None of them has ever had any problems running 44-40 rounds through them. Never needed to have the barrels pulled or anything done to the chambers.

 

Yes, 44-40 was originally designed as a rifle cartridge. So among other things it always had a good sized rim for a rifle extractor to grab. 45s were originally designed to be poked out of the chamber from within, no need for a rim for an extractor to grab. Which, is incidentally why the 45 Schofield round has a wider rim, so the extractor star of the Schofield revolver could grab it. As a matter of fact, I have even read that the narrow rim of the 45 Colt cartridge was one reason S&W proposed coming up with the Schofield cartridge as an alternative to the 45 Colt when they submitted the Schofield to the Army for tests.

 

I have always suspected that Winchester specifically designed the round with a bottleneck because they knew a bottleneck round would find its way into a chamber a little bit easier than a straight cased round. Never seen anything authoritative written to that effect, but it has always been my assumption. 44-40 was the next cartridge that Winchester developed after the 44 Henry Rimfire. The 44 Henry was a straight cased cartridge. I suspect their experience with the straight Henry round inspired them to try something with a little bit of a taper to it. Why else would all the old WCF rounds have been bottlenecks?

 

As for crimping, I actually manage to seat and crimp 44-40 in one step with a conventional seating/crimp die, without crumpling cases. You just have to be very careful about setting the die just right.

 

But I guess I have gotten longwinded again. But everybody already knew that. Like my motto says, just naturally blabby I guess.

[Rye Miles #13621]

So am I going to get in trouble now if I mention that the reason no rifles were chambered for 45 Colt in the 19th Century was that the rim of the early 45s was too small for an extractor to get a grip on? Nothing to do with Black Powder? Can you imagine trying to extract this cartridge from a rifle?

 

Early 45 Colt Cartridge

 

Funny thing is, I have five rifles chambered for 44-40. Two Winchesters, a Marlin, and two Ubertis. None of them has ever had any problems running 44-40 rounds through them. Never needed to have the barrels pulled or anything done to the chambers.

 

Yes, 44-40 was originally designed as a rifle cartridge. So among other things it always had a good sized rim for a rifle extractor to grab. 45s were originally designed to be poked out of the chamber from within, no need for a rim for an extractor to grab. Which, is incidentally why the 45 Schofield round has a wider rim, so the extractor star of the Schofield revolver could grab it. As a matter of fact, I have even read that the narrow rim of the 45 Colt cartridge was one reason S&W proposed coming up with the Schofield cartridge as an alternative to the 45 Colt when they submitted the Schofield to the Army for tests.

 

I have always suspected that Winchester specifically designed the round with a bottleneck because they knew a bottleneck round would find its way into a chamber a little bit easier than a straight cased round. Never seen anything authoritative written to that effect, but it has always been my assumption. 44-40 was the next cartridge that Winchester developed after the 44 Henry Rimfire. The 44 Henry was a straight cased cartridge. I suspect their experience with the straight Henry round inspired them to try something with a little bit of a taper to it. Why else would all the old WCF rounds have been bottlenecks?

 

As for crimping, I actually manage to seat and crimp 44-40 in one step with a conventional seating/crimp die, without crumpling cases. You just have to be very careful about setting the die just right.

 

But I guess I have gotten longwinded again. But everybody already knew that. Like my motto says, just naturally blabby I guess.

 

 

Driftwood the blabbier the better. It's all good stuff. Thanks pard, Rye

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

Why else would all the old WCF rounds have been bottlenecks?

Another reason for bottlenecks - To allow more space for black powder. Allowed the 73 to be a very effective rifle for hunting and defense out to 150 yards or so.

 

Good luck, GJ

[Driftwood Johnson, SASS #38283]

Another reason for bottlenecks - To allow more space for black powder. Allowed the 73 to be a very effective rifle for hunting and defense out to 150 yards or so.

 

Yeah, there's that too.

[Rockridge,SASS #8763]

So am I going to get in trouble now if I mention that the reason no rifles were chambered for 45 Colt in the 19th Century was that the rim of the early 45s was too small for an extractor to get a grip on? Nothing to do with Black Powder? Can you imagine trying to extract this cartridge from a rifle?

 

Early 45 Colt Cartridge

 

Funny thing is, I have five rifles chambered for 44-40. Two Winchesters, a Marlin, and two Ubertis. None of them has ever had any problems running 44-40 rounds through them. Never needed to have the barrels pulled or anything done to the chambers.

 

Yes, 44-40 was originally designed as a rifle cartridge. So among other things it always had a good sized rim for a rifle extractor to grab. 45s were originally designed to be poked out of the chamber from within, no need for a rim for an extractor to grab. Which, is incidentally why the 45 Schofield round has a wider rim, so the extractor star of the Schofield revolver could grab it. As a matter of fact, I have even read that the narrow rim of the 45 Colt cartridge was one reason S&W proposed coming up with the Schofield cartridge as an alternative to the 45 Colt when they submitted the Schofield to the Army for tests.

 

I have always suspected that Winchester specifically designed the round with a bottleneck because they knew a bottleneck round would find its way into a chamber a little bit easier than a straight cased round. Never seen anything authoritative written to that effect, but it has always been my assumption. 44-40 was the next cartridge that Winchester developed after the 44 Henry Rimfire. The 44 Henry was a straight cased cartridge. I suspect their experience with the straight Henry round inspired them to try something with a little bit of a taper to it. Why else would all the old WCF rounds have been bottlenecks?

 

As for crimping, I actually manage to seat and crimp 44-40 in one step with a conventional seating/crimp die, without crumpling cases. You just have to be very careful about setting the die just right.

 

But I guess I have gotten longwinded again. But everybody already knew that. Like my motto says, just naturally blabby I guess.

 

 

 

No disagreement, the rim on the old folded head cases was also a factor as well as the feeding. I just wasn't gonna git long winded and into all the details Sealing is the other genius of the WCF cases. Easily proven by comparing the crap you get in the action shooting BP in a 45 Colt case (or a 38, 357 or any other straight wall case) vs. BP in any of the WCF cases.

 

Never said ya can't crimp with a standard die, just easier and more tolerant of differences in cases, length etc. with the collet die. Oh yeah and I've got several of the Redding profile crimp dies, good stuff, but I'll take the collet die for the old bottlenecks - again, IMHO they're more forgiving and work for me.

[Abilene Slim SASS 81783]

So am I going to get in trouble now if I mention that the reason no rifles were chambered for 45 Colt in the 19th Century was that the rim of the early 45s was too small for an extractor to get a grip on?

Yes.

[Adirondack Jack, SASS #53440]

Yes.

 

How do you like your red herring? Back in the day, when the toggle link guns were invented, NONE of the pistol rounds had much rim, and none of em were real easy to get hold of, The rounds in use in the 1870s in the US were all inside primed, folded rim cases, which looked very much like a .22 rimfire. Though invented in the 1860s, Boxer priming didn't appear in the US until the very end of the 1870s, and modern cases with a groove ahead of the rim not until around WWI in limited use, and it wasn't universal until the 1930s, well after the levergun era was about done. I've got several examples here.

 

Early folded head cases often failed to extract, whether in "pistol" rounds used in rifles, or "real" rifle rounds. Some of the cases found at the Little Big Horn excavation site showed pry marks from knives used to get em out of rifles, and these cases, .45-70 or .50-70, had a whole lot more rim than any "pistol caliber" round.

 

.45 COLT was not used by WINCHESTER as they were death on using the COLT name on anything, and had their own rounds to sell. Winchester was in the AMMO business, and probably derived more profit from ammo than guns.

[Fairshake]

Driftwood is quite correct with the reason that we have no Colt 45 rifles from the 1873 period. The Winchester 1873 was built and designed to work with it's proprietary cartridge. That cartridge was the 44-40. At the same time Colt was designing and coming out with the 45 Colt to use in it's 1873 SA revolver. It was made large and straight sided to hold plenty of gunpowder. They had a built in cartridge lever to push out the empties so they had no need to design the case with a large rim that could be grabbed by the ejector. The slight bottle neck and thin case mouth make for a great sealing of the chamber.

I have owned and shot 45 Colts since the 70's and the clean up after using black powder is much more of a task than the cleaning of the 44-40.

I also don't have to use any lube on the cases that are fired from my guns. They size with no effort.

Can you mess up a 44-40 case mouth yes you can but it all depends on how you go about the entire process. I have cases with at least 10 loadings that are fired with loads of 33-35 grains of 2F and they are like new.

I love the 45 Colt but I never would go back to using it since I became a 44-40 shooter.

I will also back up Garrison Joe on the use of the Redding Profile Crimp Die. I have been loading since 1968 and have used all types of name brand products. When I started with the 44-40 I had a set of RCBS cowboy dies. I liked all the dies but I prefer to load all my ammo with a four step process. In other words I crimp on the final stage and not at the same time as seating the bullet.

I tried the RCBS, Lee, Hornaday crimping dies and none of them gave me the proper roll crimp I was looking for. I purchased the Redding Profile die and was in reloaders heaven. Later Fairshake

[Rockridge,SASS #8763]

Whatever works for you, go with it. If we want to get puffed up about experience and Bona Fides "stuff" I also have been reloading for over 40 years and I also crimp as a separate final stage. What works for me is the Redding Profile crimp for straight wall rimmed cases, a taper crimp for rimless cases that headspace on the case mouth and the Lee Factory Crimp die for the rimmed bottle neck cases like the WCF cases (I load the 25, 30, 32, 38 and 44 WCF using the Factory Crimp die). So you can pick your poison, that's mine.

 

I've wasted too much breath on this and I'm sure the horse is beat dead. I'm done - y'all have fun fellers.

[Dirty Dan Dawkins]

So the .44-40 would be easier to reload if Driftwood hadn't posted?

 

lol

[Dirty Dan Dawkins]

This is a no Brainer, Pards.

 

Dash cartridges in the Winchester 73 Rules the Roost.

 

All others are second.

 

No contest here.

 

Unless its in a slicked up Marlin!

 

Oh yeah, should we be using "folded head" cases in Classic Cowboy?

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

I wish to dispute that handloading the .44-40 is more difficult than the .45 Colt.

 

 

 

Yes, you do have to be meticulous with the .44 for the reasons stated by Driftwood, but the "extra care" is not really all that greater than what you have to do with the .45 in my opinion. Simply by paying attention to what you are doing you will avoid rumpling your cases.

 

I reload both rounds, and the only thing that makes the .44 more work to reload is how you have to lube the cases before resizing. This one extra step is at most, a minor inconvienence. It should not prevent you from deciding to try your hand at loading it.

 

At the moment, the only gun I have chambered for the .44-40 is my Uberti made Henry, and it works just fine. I have .45's in an AWA Lighting and an ASM 92 and have never had any trouble with either of them. There is some blowback with the .45, but with the loads I use the effect seems to be limited to the outside of the cases being somewhat dirty. I don't seem to feel any debris in my face that others have commented on. I'd guess that by experimenting with the specifics of your load, you could reduce the blowback to almost nothing. I'm just not that worried about it.

 

And so with all of that in mind, to decide on .45 Colt or .44-40, decide which one you like more, and go with it. Or, use both.

 

The choice, is yours.

[Rockridge,SASS #8763]

Oh yeah, should we be using "folded head" cases in Classic Cowboy?

 

ROFLOL - Now THAT's appropriate! AND funny!

[Griff]

The .44WCF makes a bigger "boom" than a .45Colt? Really? Both hold about 40 grains in the old balloon head cases, both hold about 34-37 grains in solid web cases (varies by case manufacturer), the .44WCF does have a slightly lighter standard bullet than a .45 Colt, but both seem to chronograph within a 100fps of each other...

 

The SAAMI spec for the diameter of the 44WCF at the web is .4689 while on the .45Colt it is .480... length is also similar, 1.305 vs 1.285, with AOL being 1.592 vs. 1.600. Albeit the 44WCF has a thinner neck, but since I haven't done a volume test on either case, I couldn't really say that one is has materially more volume than the other. In fact, if two cartridges were closer together in almost all respects, I would be hard pressed to name them... the .30WCF and the 7.62x51R might be such an example... yet they share the same shape, whereas the 44WCF and 45 Colt differ in that respect.

 

Unlike a rifle in 44WCF, my 45Colt rifles give tolerable accuracy (for CAS purposes anyway), with either .45Colt or 44WCF ammo. I doubt you can say that with a 44WCF.

 

Where in all that does one come up with a .44WCF having more "boom" than the 45Colt? I'll admit my hearing has diminished in one ear... but I have NEVER been able to tell by the sound of the shot whether someone is shooting a .44WCF vs a .45Colt.

.

.

.

.

.

And yes, I do KNOW that the .30WCF and 7.62x51R ARE the same cartridge! Just making a point. The above is posted in good humor... I hope you can take it in the same vein.

 

And, Driftwood, get as "windy" as you like, I almost always learn something from your posts... even if I already knew it! LOL. SOMEDAY, you're going to have to come down to TX and shoot with us... 'cause I'm skeered to take my guns up there to that far, far corner of "Yankee-land" to shoot with you!