Is it just me, or does anyone else have "issues" with .44-40 in a Colt?

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

This is gonna sound odd.

When it comes to 3rd Generation Colts in .44-40, I have never had one that did not have a problem.   Sometimes the chambers are too tight to load, and much more commonly, there is not enough clearance between the back of the cylinder and the recoil shield for the rim of the cartridge to rotate thorough the gun, even though the cartridges are properly seated in the chambers.

This has never happened in a 1st, or 2nd Gen gun, or in a clone, just 3rd Gen Colts.  Has anyone else noticed this problem, or am I just unlucky?

It's easy enough to fix, my local gunsmith has just taken a couple of 1000th's of the front of the bushing, and the problem is gone.   But, man is it irritating!

[Rye Miles #13621]

I had a pair of 3rd gen Colts in .44-40. I shot them for 7-8 years with black powder. I never had a problem. I sold them when I quit BP and got some 3rd gen Colts in .357 no problems with them either. However I do have a slight problem with a 2nd gen that seems to be a timing issue. 
Good luck 

Edited November 9, 2025 by Rye Miles #13621

[Yul Lose]

R&P brass rim thickness caused problems in mine, all other brands worked fine. The thicker rim caused high primer like issues.

[Savvy Jack]

10 hours ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

This is gonna sound odd.

When it comes to 3rd Generation Colts in .44-40, I have never had one that did not have a problem.   Sometimes the chambers are too tight to load, and much more commonly, there is not enough clearance between the back of the cylinder and the recoil shield for the rim of the cartridge to rotate thorough the gun, even though the cartridges are properly seated in the chambers.

This has never happened in a 1st, or 2nd Gen gun, or in a clone, just 3rd Gen Colts.  Has anyone else noticed this problem, or am I just unlucky?

It's easy enough to fix, my local gunsmith has just taken a couple of 1000th's of the front of the bushing, and the problem is gone.   But, man is it irritating!

 

Yeap, newer generations (employees) knowing nothing about the 44-40 history.

Edited November 9, 2025 by Savvy Jack

[Bailey Creek,5759]

A shooter, I know had a problem.

He tried a factory crimp. Seems to fix the problem.

[Rye Miles #13621]

5 hours ago, Savvy Jack said:

 

Yeap, newer generations (employees) knowing nothing about the 44-40 history.

 I don’t think they’ve  made a .44-40 since the early 1990’s. Currently they only offer .45 Colt in 3 barrel lengths. My guess is it has nothing to do with the employees. 

[Savvy Jack]

26 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

 I don’t think they’ve  made a .44-40 since the early 1990’s. Currently they only offer .45 Colt in 3 barrel lengths. My guess is it has nothing to do with the employees. 

1876 vs 1990....equals "newer"

[Rye Miles #13621]

25 minutes ago, Savvy Jack said:

1876 vs 1990....equals "newer"

That was 35 years ago that those  techs were working on them, that’s hardly newer. Some of those people if not most are probably retired. I never had any problems with the 3rd gens I had in .44-40.

Edited November 9, 2025 by Rye Miles #13621

[Savvy Jack]

13 hours ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

That was 35 years ago that those  techs were working on them, that’s hardly newer. Some of those people if not most are probably retired. I never had any problems with the 3rd gens I had in .44-40.

You missed the whole danged point...geeesh. I guarantee you that folks in the 1960's through the 1990's are a hellofalot newer than those from the 1870's and 1880's.

 

[Rye Miles #13621]

23 minutes ago, Savvy Jack said:

You missed the whole danged point...geeesh. I guarantee you that folks in the 1960's through the 1990's are a hellofalot newer than those from the 1870's and 1880's.

 

Yea I know that DUH, you missed my point, the folks working on Colts in the 90’s knew what they were doing. Again, I’ve never had a problem with a 3rd gen .44-40! I was comparing the folks NOW to the ones in the 90’s!

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

27 minutes ago, Savvy Jack said:

You missed the whole danged point...geeesh

 

Heh heh....

Okay, let me clarify....   For .44-40 revolvers, I have the following guns...

1 Merwin & Hulbert with top strap.  Estimated date of manufacture between 1883 and 1887.   No issues.
1 Colt Sheriff's model.  Uncertain date of manufacture, but has an SA prefix, so it's 3rd Generation.  .44 Special cylinder had no issues.  .44-40 cylinder had chambers that were too tight.  Also, there was not enough clearance for the rims to get through the gap.

1 Colt Sheriff's mode. Exact same issues as above.

1 Uberti Clone.   No issues.
1 3rd Generation Colt made in 1993.   Tight chambers and not enough clearance.
1 1st Generation Colt made in 1884.   No issues.

1 Smith & Wesson New Model 3 made in 1897.  No issues

1 Smith & Wesson Model 3 DA made in 1891.  No Issues.
1 3rd Generation Bunline Special.  Factory .44 Special cylinder had no issues.  After market .44-40 cylinder, made by Colt, had tight chambers and had to be fitted to the gun.
1 Golt 1878 made in 1883.  No Issues.
1 Colt 3rd Generation made in 1992.   Tight chambers and not enough clearance.

Other pistols.

 

1 Uberti Mares Leg.  No issues.

 

Rifles...

Uberti 66, Henry and 73, Marlin 1889,  Colt Lighting, No issues.

AWA Lighting had chambers that were too tight.

So, it seems to me that Colt 3rd Gen .44-40's have these very specific issues.   Copies of the Colt, and older Colts and other pistols don't seem to have those problems.
 

 

[Rye Miles #13621]

12 minutes ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

 

Heh heh....

Okay, let me clarify....   For .44-40 revolvers, I have the following guns...

1 Merwin & Hulbert with top strap.  Estimated date of manufacture between 1883 and 1887.   No issues.
1 Colt Sheriff's model.  Uncertain date of manufacture, but has an SA prefix, so it's 3rd Generation.  .44 Special cylinder had no issues.  .44-40 cylinder had chambers that were too tight.  Also, there was not enough clearance for the rims to get through the gap.

1 Colt Sheriff's mode. Exact same issues as above.

1 Uberti Clone.   No issues.
1 3rd Generation Colt made in 1993.   Tight chambers and not enough clearance.
1 1st Generation Colt made in 1884.   No issues.

1 Smith & Wesson New Model 3 made in 1897.  No issues

1 Smith & Wesson Model 3 DA made in 1891.  No Issues.
1 3rd Generation Bunline Special.  Factory .44 Special cylinder had no issues.  After market .44-40 cylinder, made by Colt, had tight chambers and had to be fitted to the gun.
1 Golt 1878 made in 1883.  No Issues.
1 Colt 3rd Generation made in 1992.   Tight chambers and not enough clearance.

Other pistols.

 

1 Uberti Mares Leg.  No issues.

 

Rifles...

Uberti 66, Henry and 73, Marlin 1889,  Colt Lighting, No issues.

AWA Lighting had chambers that were too tight.

So, it seems to me that Colt 3rd Gen .44-40's have these very specific issues.   Copies of the Colt, and older Colts and other pistols don't seem to have those problems.
 

 

Wow! Like I said before, I never had a problem with my .44-40 3rd gens. They worked flawlessly. I don’t think ALL the 3rd gens .44-40’s had problems. I had a 3rd gen .45 that I sent back to Colt because of the firing pin bushing that was not flush. They fixed it in about 2-3 weeks. Oh well every company no matter what has lemons and occasional mistakes. Just MHO 

Edited November 10, 2025 by Rye Miles #13621

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

44 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

Wow! Like I said before, I never had a problem with my .44-40 3rd gens.

 

I am willing to admit that my issues have been bad luck.   But, I also have to admit that I have never had this issue with a .45 or a 38/.357 Magnum, or a .44 Special Colt.   IIRC, my 3rd Gen .32-20 had the tight chamber issue as well, but not my firsts.

[Bailey Creek,5759]

polish the chambers. Mite work.

[Griff]

5 hours ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

 

I am willing to admit that my issues have been bad luck.   But, I also have to admit that I have never had this issue with a .45 or a 38/.357 Magnum, or a .44 Special Colt.   IIRC, my 3rd Gen .32-20 had the tight chamber issue as well, but not my firsts.

Could it be that the good folks at Colt kept those "rejects" close to home for easy repair, while shipping the good'uns off to the frontier... places like Ohio?  {Smart-azzed answer mode off}.  Seriously... I've heard it hypothesized that Colt, (similar to Winchester & their "Commemoratives"), didn't think about QC as they believed most purchasers were "collectors" and not "shooters".  

[Rye Miles #13621]

1 hour ago, Griff said:

Could it be that the good folks at Colt kept those "rejects" close to home for easy repair, while shipping the good'uns off to the frontier... places like Ohio?  {Smart-azzed answer mode off}.  Seriously... I've heard it hypothesized that Colt, (similar to Winchester & their "Commemoratives"), didn't think about QC as they believed most purchasers were "collectors" and not "shooters".  

I’ve heard about the collectors theory as well. Maybe I just got lucky with the pair I had. I have three 3rd gens in .357 that work great. The problem I have (which a a timing issue) is with a 2nd gen I have in .357. 

[Navy Six]

 

I have a pair of 3rd gen SAAs in 44-40 that have been shot exclusively with blackpowder. One of them will tie up with the slightest hint of a high primer. Just happened only once during a Match and that was about 10 years ago.

[Tex Jones, SASS 2263]

2 hours ago, Navy Six said:

 

I have a pair of 3rd gen SAAs in 44-40 that have been shot exclusively with blackpowder. One of them will tie up with the slightest hint of a high primer. Just happened only once during a Match and that was about 10 years ago.

I had a problem with high primers in one of my USFA 's.  Turned out the bushing on the recoil shield was loose and didn't allow the fired primer to reset.  

[Springfield Slim SASS #24733]

Funny, no mention of bullet diameter. I had to open up my Uberti pistols so I could run .429 bullets reliably.

[Dad Vernedbarmit]

I agree. Just my 2 cents, I noticed several miles back that some bullet makers advertise .44-40 diameter at .428, opposed to .44 mag/special at .430. My 73 loved them.

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

I load .427" bullets in my .44-40's

[El Sobrante Kid]

20 hours ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

I load .427" bullets in my .44-40's

 

One of the consistent issues, which "seems" to be getting better, is that manufacturers were/are using modern .429 barrels with traditionally sized cylinders made for .425-.427 bullets. The shoulder setback also seems to be an issue. So between the chamber, the chamber throat, the shoulder location, and the barrel, there are any number of combinations that do not play well together.

[Savvy Jack]

48 minutes ago, El Sobrante Kid said:

 

One of the consistent issues, which "seems" to be getting better, is that manufacturers were/are using modern .429 barrels with traditionally sized cylinders made for .425-.427 bullets. The shoulder setback also seems to be an issue. So between the chamber, the chamber throat, the shoulder location, and the barrel, there are any number of combinations that do not play well together.

Ruger was horrible about it.

[El Sobrante Kid]

2 hours ago, Savvy Jack said:

Ruger was horrible about it.

 

For years I have heard horror stories about Ruger's chamber throats not matching the caliber and/or not matching the barrel diameter. This is specific to 44-40, I don't know if other calibers have the same issue(s).

[Savvy Jack]

2 hours ago, El Sobrante Kid said:

 

For years I have heard horror stories about Ruger's chamber throats not matching the caliber and/or not matching the barrel diameter. This is specific to 44-40, I don't know if other calibers have the same issue(s).

Yes, I meant to be specific about them being 44-40.