Got .44-40 reloading experience?

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lancel

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
376
Location
KY-TN Border
I've reloaded other calibers but I'm going to start loading .44-40 in the near future.
Since it's said to be more challenging to load, does anyone have any particular guidance or tips to share on reloading .44-40?

Thanks,
Larry
 
44-40

At the bottom of the main reloading page there is a search box and enter 44-40 and you will see tha Quantrill and I have had a discussion and there should be other posts on the 44-40 subject.

Fitz
 
Thanks, Fitz but I tried a search before I started the thread. Couldn't find anything relevant under .44-40 with or without the decimal point.

Have you got a link to the thread you referring to?

Thanks,
Larry
 
I have found that:
.44-40 brass is thin. It doesn't take much of a bump against a die mouth to crumple it. A crookedly started bullet will roll it right up. Take the time to line it up, even on a progressive.
.44-40 brass is slightly bottlenecked. So there aren't carbide sizing dies for it. But it is so thin you can size it dry or with just a slight spray of One Shot. But it must be CLEAN. My steel die is about as scratched up as is still usable.
.44-40 brass can be roll crimped in the seating die or separately, but I have gotten better loads lately with a Lee Factory (collet) Crimp Die.

Other than that, load normally; size, prime, flare, seat, crimp.

Oh yeah, .44 Special semiwadcutters don't work. Get the RNFP.
 
Thanks, Quantrill and Johnny Guest

Guess I couldn't find the load data in the "Handloading and Reloading" forum because it was in "Handguns: revolvers".:)

Whee-oo! Them's mighty big loads in that old data. For example, the START load for Unique is a full grain ABOVE the MAX load in modern Hornady or Alliant tables. So I won't be using the old data (I'm too attached to my hands).

The other info is very helpful though. This promises to be a fun and useful cartridge.
Thanks,
Larry
 
In a few reloading books, the 44-40 data was listed in 2 places; under rifle and under pistol with the data being VERY different. If you are loading for a pistol, keep that in mind. Quantrill
 
Paul "Fitz" Jones said
You are a good source of information on this list.
Click to expand...
Ok, I've been gearing up to reload .44-40 for a while now. I appreciate any information offered but you have me puzzled.

Looking over load data on my bookshelves, in databases, and on the internet, I can't find recipes that indicate that old data is any good at all. In fact, it appears downright dangerous.

Even realizing there's different recipes for CAS, pistol, and rifle, I'm left wondering what's the basis for the comment, "good source of information".


For example, Alliant's most current data (website here) shows:
Code: 
 (24" barrel)
Bullet		Powder	Grains	Velocity	CUP
Rem. 200SP	2400	14.5	1,230	12,500
And just for comparison, here's Accurate Powder's data:
Code: 
(20" barrel):
Bullet		Powder	Grains	Velocity	CUP
NOS 200 JHP	No.5	 9.8 	1008 	13,000

SAAMI Maximum Average Pressure for the .44-40 is 13,000 C.U.P.

Since these are at or near SAAMI maximum, they're not weak CAS loads. I can't find a 2400 or Unique load that compares to those listed in the old table. Again, what's the support for the old data being good information?

Knowing that you're experienced .44-40 loaders, please enlighten me. What am I missing?

Thanks,
Larry
 
I think what John Paul meant was that I had access to some older information and was willing to share it. I would not use most of that info myself. It is just interesting that once upon a time, people probably did use those loads. What JP said was that I WAS A GOOD SOURCE not that I had GOOD INFORMATION from that source. On the one hand, those older sources represent what some folk of that day actually used and were not influenced by corporate lawyers trying to stave off law suits, and on the other hand the powders of today MAY have changed somewhat as the manufacturers have changed. Heck!, the powder from different lot numbers may change considerably which is what today's sources represent. Quantrill
 
44-40 & Quantrill

What I am saying is that Bill AKA Quantrill as a member of my Star Reloaders list and this THR list is a very helpful sort of fellow who is willing to find and share from his lifetime wealth of information.

Paul Jones AKA John Paul
 
Paul "Fitz" Jones and Quantrill,
I understand your mutual respect for one another. Quantrill, you rightly put plenty of qualifiers and warnings in your post. It's great that you supplied a bit of historical data. But I have a problem with it that a moderator (eg. Paul "Fitz" Jones) could best address.

Let me explain the problem in a different way.

For 200gr JSP bullets:

The old data for 2400 gives a start load 38% greater than modern 2400 at near SAAMI maximum.


***Regardless whether a reloader works up a load by starting at the minimum charge or starts at 10% below minimum, he's starting way over the SAAMI maximum.***


Worse, if a loader wanted to work up to the old data's high loads and started 10% under, he would be starting 80% over Alliant's data because the recipe is 90% over. The old recipe is almost twice the powder as the modern load.

Hornady's 5th Edition allows a little more powder but there's still huge differences. I used Alliant Powder's data because (1) Alliant makes 2400 and Unique and (2) they list the pressure with the load so you can see they're not Cowboy loads.

Comparing old Unique data with modern data, also shows over maximum charge per Alliant and a little better by Hornady.

In short, my problem is:

Unless there's a safe explanation for listing such large powder charges, why isn't the data deleted since it's unsafe and dangerous for modern powders with the same names?

Larry
 
Lancel...

good point. Kinda answers all the threads about "Why do all the new manuals have sissy loads??? "

Maybe it's because the old ones were dangerous. Perhaps the saving grace is that modern steel in modern guns is forgiving enough that we aren't blowing up the newer guns

Anyway...all the advice as above, and I'd STRONGLY (as in mandatory) recommend the FCD from Lee. Even if the rounds come out looking good, the brass is so thin that it will buckle slightly and not chamber. They look OK but won't work.
 
Is there "hot" data on the Net? I ask because I don't look for it. Don't need it, don't want it.
It is kind of hard to delete load data in hardcopy of old edition manuals.

Back then, pressure test rigs were very uncommon and the writers loaded them up to whatever the gun would stand. They assumed you would understand and heed the warnings about not using the top loads in weak old guns like '73 Winchesters. The '92 Winchester and '94 Marlin are a lot stronger. But not unbreakable. There are a number of .44-40s out there with jugged chambers, stretched receiver rings, and battered lockup from magnum force loads. The previous owner of my '92 used loads out of the old literature that would turn a modern lawyer driven ballistician's hair white as snow. Fortunately the gun was not hurt, or not much, and gets only Cowboy to factory equivalent loads from me.
 
44-40

I will be loading some 44-40 in the near future. What has been discussed in this thread is in print historical data that was fine at the time it was printed. Now my rifle is a Winchester 44-40 1892 Winchester Saddle Ring Carbine. Besides the changes in powder volume and strength during my long life there were copies of my weapon made in Italy among other places of considerably less quality materials. I have had an El Tigre copy and it was pretty but the metal finishing quality was crude in comparison. When the first copies were made in the 60's they came from Italy and were recognized as lesser quality similar to "Made in Japan" quality after WW2 if you are old enough to remember that saying. So I think that is one reason for powder listings changing.

While having a career in Law enforcement there was a saying "That stupid people make the laws that affect normal people that would not consider doing such a stupid thing".

It was asked here for data on an old weapon from the 1800s that is not currently listed in modern manuals. What was presented was some information from a shooting history buff and it should be taken as such "A statement of Historical Interest".

Now the 44-40 was a 44 caliber bullet with 40 grains of black powder to propell it. The Winchester 1892 was and is made of good quality steel. Now anyone taking this historical information for use with a pistol and rifle combination which was common then knows that the pistol cannot take the pressures the rifle can handle. So the powder companies taking into account their being stupid people who load hot for their rifles have used this ammo in pistols and injured themselves. So this person rather than blaming himself sues the source of the printed information so the powder recommendations change to be weaker listings to protect these individuals.

So taking all of this information into account it is entirely in your hands to determine the quality of your weapon, the diameter, hardness and weight of your bullet, the powder brand, charge used and how you use the historical information asked for and nicely provided by Quantrill. And my memories with my own 44-40.

There other methods like analysing a factory load and determining its speed on a shooting range with the modern equipment available. Also the Remington factory has a lot of historical data on their ammo.
 
I get great results with 215gr SWCs (.429") through my Win 1892. To feed the Lyman 429215 (with or without gas check--works about the same), I either crimp above the top ring or trim the cases back by ~1/16". If I remember right, the same goes for my Colt SAA--the bullets stick out the front of the cylinder otherwise. The 215gr SWCs the I buy by the 500 feed just fine when crimped in the regular crimping groove.

I shoot w/ 7.0 or 7.2grs Win 231, WLP primers, R-P brass. I use this load also with a RNFP but I can't remember off the top of my head what it weighs--I think it's 0.427". Velocity is about 1070fps and it shoots a 1" 5rd group at 50yds. IMI 4227 (? grs) and Unique (7.0 grs) are other powders that have worked well. I have a .44Spl Colt SAA with a .44-40 cylinder, but it shoots neither cartridge very well--3" at 25yds is as good as it gets regardless of what it's fed.

I used a Lyman Ideal tool (Lyman 310) and a Lee powder scoop for the longest time. Ditto on everything everyone said about the cases being thin. Use lube when sizing. I tried last night on my Dillon--I guess my .455 shellplate works for .44-40 as well. The powder die is almost over-flaring the casenecks regardless of how the die is adjusted, but it works.
 
redneck2:
I got that .44-40 Lee Factory Crimp Die right here beside me just waiting to go to work.

John Taffin has some great information about .44-40 leverguns and loads at this website here.

He also has a warning about not using the old 60's data but goes on to provide some pretty zippy and accurate loads.

Larry
 
In case anyone doesn't know, a lot of data from pre 1960 is based on balloonhead cases which had more volume and less pressure for a given powder charge, so the old loads are always heavier, and sometimes by quite a bit.

Ty
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
Reloading for the 44-40?
Replies
6
Views
491
rcmodel
R
Y
  • Locked
reloading 44-40
Replies
0
Views
208
yotesmoker
Y
D
  • Locked
Reloading 44-40 question
Replies
8
Views
696
MEHavey
MEHavey
C
  • Locked
.429 bullets in 44-40 rifle?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Jim Watson
J
H
  • Locked
Question for 44-40 reloaders
Replies
7
Views
695
Henry45
H
Back
Top