.44 magnum or .44-40?

Status
Not open for further replies.
With the exception of the 92Win,lever rifle designs that might be chambered 44-40 used the toggle link lockup.It is not as robust as the locking bars of the 92. It would be a mistake to push them.
Agreed the 44-40 has very thin case mouths. I think maybe .006.Remembering it was designed for Black Powder...IMO,the thin,soft case facilitated obturation. Gas seal. It helped to keep corrosive fouling in the barrel,not back in the more complex to clean receiver.

I never owned a 44-40,not sure,but did it use a heeled bullet? And maybe nominal bullet dia is .427? Those need verification. Not sure.

If,for some reason a person felt a need for a hotter version of a ..."similar to "
44-40 cartridge,the 45 Colt can be necked down.
I frankly messed up chambering a 92 clone in 44 magnum. I have a lot of work in the octagon barrel ,hanging the mag tube,the forend,etc. Its all custom.
The rounds were not happy "going round the corner" into the chamber.I stoned a little too much entry at the chamber mouth . It bulges the brass a bit. I don't like it.
One remedy might be a reamer similar to a 44-40,and using 45 Colt brass tapered/necked down to .430.That would clean my chamber,and the tapered case would feed easy.Thats essentially 44-40.

44 mag and 45 Colt rim dia are equivalent.

Its do-able. Its also debatable. Its just an idea. It would be best if it would not chamber in a true 44-40.
I'd want enough neck for 300 gr bullets, A bit more powder capacity might be useful with those.
I'll leave it on the back burner.No hurry.
 
Last edited:
It's not a formal requirement, but a lot of folks do it. ;)

I had the last word in this thread in Dec 2010, so I'll claim that again here, now. I'm closing this one.

RoosterJ welcome to TFL, and feel free to start a new thread on this topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top