How about a 38-40 colt for self defense

[9mmhpfan]

I read in a gun magazine ( shooting times I think) once that the old west caliber 38-40 colt was almost a twin of the modern 40 Smith and Wesson. So I have two questions

1. How come no modern gun or ammo manufacturer makes revolvers or self defense loads for the 38-40 Colt?

2. Could you rebore a 357 Magnum to accept the 38-40 Colt and if yes would the cost be prohibitive as to make this project not allowable?

Well just musing on the possible

 

[Sunray]

1. No demand.
2. "...would the cost be prohibitive..." Yep. The .38-40 uses a .400" bullet. You'd have to bore out the whole barrel then re-rifle leaving a rather thin barrel wall. Think $60 plus per hour.

 

[HRT]

If you bought a S&W .357 you would have to rebore and rerifle the barrel in addition to drilling out the cylinder. The 38-40 uses a .400-.401" diamete bullet while the .357 Mag and .38 Special use .357-.358" or so diameter bullets. The 38-40 is the ballistic twin of the 40 S&W but it did it in black powder days. Yes it would be an as effective defensive weapon as the .40 S&W. The .38-40 gets around 1000FPS from a 180 gr bullet and a normal .40 smith gets .....guess what 1000 fps from a 180 grain bullet. If you want a 38-40 for fun by all means get one, if you what more practical (read as available ammunition) caliber get a S&W 610, then you can even step up another 4-500 FPS with the 180gr bullet in the 10mm.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Ruger made a Vaquero recently with interchangeable cylinders in 38-40 and .40S&W.

If you are interested in a 38-40, you might want to try to find one of those. It is also very easy to conver to 40S&W cylinder over to 10 mm, it just has to bored out a little further.

 

[jc2]

While a hot 10mm load may yield ~300 fps more MV than a hot 180-grain .38-40 (.40 S&W) that does not necessarily make for a better LE/defence cartridge. A 180-grain bullet at ~1000 fps is a very good combination for most LE/defence applications. The real question is why bother with the 10mm. The ..41 Magnum, which is a revolver cartridge, will yield ~50% more energy than the hottest 10mm loads (if "hot" is what you want) and can offer decent LE/defence performance with mid-level loads (which are roughly equivalent to "hot" 10mm loads).

 

[MachIVshooter]

38-40 Colt

.38-40 Winchester.

The ..41 Magnum, which is a revolver cartridge, will yield ~50% more energy than the hottest 10mm loads

Who makes/lists a .41 mag load with 1,200 ft/lbs at the muzzle?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Who makes/lists a .41 mag load with 1,200 ft/lbs at the muzzle?

I am confused. Hot 10 mm I thought ran around 600 ft lbs, so if 41 mag has 50% more energy, then it would only have to go 900 ft lbs. Why are you asking about 1200 ft lbs?

Also, I cant find a commercially available 41 mag from a major manufacturer that runs more than about 650 ft lbs, which is minimally more than 10 mm.

 

[Father Knows Best]

Quote:
38-40 Colt

.38-40 Winchester.

Not quite. The original name was the .38 Winchester Central Fire, a.k.a. the "38 WCF." It was invented by Winchester and originally offered in the Winchester model 1873 rifle. It became known generically as the "38-40", just as the .44 Winchester Central Fire became known as the 44-40, because other manufacturers didn't want to put the Winchester name on their guns or didn't have the rights to do so. So the name is either ".38 Winchester" or "38-40" but not "38-40 Winchester", and it has never had the Colt name in it.

Incidentally, you can still get brand new revolvers chambered in 38-40. Colt will make a new Single Action Army for you in 38-40, with your choice of 4-3/4", 5-1/2" or 7-1/2" barrel (those are standard; custom lengths available at additional cost) and your choice of case hardened or nickel plated steel finish. See here for details: http://www.coltsmfg.com/cmci/saarmy.38-40.asp

 

[rockstar.esq]

The 38-40 could be a fine option as a CCW caliber. I really like the idea of a .40 S&W revolver however the main advantage of such a gun would be lost if the cylinder and frame were cut to .357 length. Seems to me that a great milestone in CCW could be achieved if only some maker could see it. Please spare me the cost arguement, there are new Mateba's that sell. The 38-40 is kind of like the .44 special. It does it's job well yet it quickly gets eclipsed by fad, velocity figures, and marketing. The aforementioned 10mm and 41mag are both fine cartridges that are going nowhere fast. Not that many will admit it but handloading is truly the only way to get the benifits that are commonly lauded for them. Not to mention, one years worth of practice ammunition for either will easily offset the price of a new gun. One thing that I don't really understand is that revolvers never have "takedown threads" similar to the old winchester lever guns or yore. If such a system were availible on a single action, you could swap cylinder and barrel pretty quick. I'm sure this idea will get trashed since everyone agrees that nothing new will ever happen due to cost, however dreams are free.

 

[jc2]

Lone_Gunman -

Also, I cant find a commercially available 41 mag from a major manufacturer that runs more than about 650 ft lbs, which is minimally more than 10 mm.

Buffalo Bore has three .41 Magnum loads that top out over 1000 fpe (which is ~50% that the hottest commercial 10mm loads). The bottom line is a hot-loaded 10mm is equivalent to a hot-loaded .357 Magnum. The .41 Magnum is in whole different league.

 

[RyanM]

http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/index.php?cPath=21_25

The hottest 10mm these guys make is over 750 ft-lbs. Not that ft-lbs actually matter, but there you go.

 

[jc2]

Yep, there's some hot-loaded factory ammo available.

Buffalo Bore offers 180-grain 10mm at 728 fpe.

Three out of four of Buffalo Bore's .357 Magnum loads make it over 750 fpe (and the one that doesn't hits 740 fpe). Their hottest .357 Magnum load hits 802 fpe.

Of course, their mildest .41 Magnum load makes it to 1028 fpe.

I'd lot rather carry an L-frame .357 Magnum than a N-frame 10mm. If I go to the N-frame, give me a .41 or .44 Magnum. I might as well get some additional performance for the additional size/weight.

 

[RyanM]

Keep in mind that Buffalo bore usually chronos their loads from 6" bbl Freedom Arms revolvers, while Doubletap uses more "realistic" handguns; like a 4" GP-100 for their .357 (and according to customer tests, 3" barreled revolvers are usually only a dozen or less fps under the advertized velocity).

 

[MachIVshooter]

Of course, their mildest .41 Magnum load makes it to 1028 fpe.

From a 6" tube.

The heaviest 10mm load they have gives 793 FPE from a 5" gun. (so I am told). I'll not argue that the .41 mag is more powerful, but 50% is definitely an embellishment. And there are not a whole lot of .41's I would consider carry guns. However, the new S&W 41's are really nice hunting rigs. A buddy of mine bought a 7.5" model and it is a sweet shooter (arguably less recoil than my 4" security-six .357)

 

[jc2]

RyanM -

It depends on the calibre. Buffalo Bore provides data for different barrel lengths three, four, five, six and 18.5 inches in the .357 Magnum. Their 10mm data are from a five inch barrel.

BTW, if you really believe 6" barreled .357 and .41 Magnums are not "realistic," you are definitely in wrong forum (or maybe right the forum to learn something). Six-inch barrels are very common in these calibres. Matter of fact, I don't think S&W has even offered a 4" .41 Magnum for a number of years). While it may appear to be "fair" (a "panty-waist" word to be sure) to some people to compare a 6".41 Magnum to a 4.6" or 5" 10mm, it does very much reflect the realty. A 4" .357 Magnum with hot loads is easily ballistically equivalent to a 4.6" 10mm with hot loads--a 6" .357 Magnum easily walks away from the 10mm.

MachIVshooter -

Approximately 50% (that's what the tilde "~" means) is definitely not an embellishment. Depending on the loads you compare (and I am talking hot--BB and DT--loads), some .41 Magnum loads top the 10mm by over 60%.
BTW, the hottest 10mm load BB lists is 728 fpe from a 5" barrel (not 793 fpe). If you do the math, you will discover that to the hottest BB .41 Magnum load (1074 fpe) 48% more powerful (which can be safely, and accurately, described as ~50%).

When you think 10mm, you need to think .357 Magnum (and barely at that)--not .41 Magnum.

 

[RyanM]

jc2, I was thinking "realistic" lengths for concealed carry, not for hunting, bear defense, or whatever else. There is no way in heck that I could comfortably carry concealed a 6" revolver without having a very noticable gun-shaped bulge on my hip.

 

[jc2]

You're entering the realm of personal preference. I have no problem at all concealing a 5"-6" N-frames (or an even larger 5.5" Redhawk). In fact, I find them far easier and more comfortable to conceal than a full-size Glock (and that's not even considering their greatly superior handling characteristics). I consider my 5" Model 27 a superior (read concealable and comfortable) for concealed carry than my Glock 29. You may not prefer an N-frame, but that does not make it unrealistic for concealed carry (and your preferences really have nothing to do with power difference between the .41 Magnum and the 10mm).

 

[dav]

Not quite. The original name was the .38 Winchester Central Fire, a.k.a. the "38 WCF."

Are you sure of this, FKB? Speer, in their reloading manual, call it 38-40 Winchester. Also, I'm pretty sure it is Winchester Center Fire, as opposed to Central.

But then, Speer (in their reloading manual #13) says it is a (RIFE) cartridge, when what they meant was (RIFLE). So it is probably all just another typographical error.

 

[Father Knows Best]

Yup. I'm sure. I'm kind of an authority on cartridge development from the Civil War until the advent of smokeless powders in the 1890s.

At the time of the civil war, most metallic cartridges were rimfires. The famous Spencer and Henry repeating rifles both used rimfire cartridges. Even the famous "yellowboy" rifle of western movie fame (also known as the Winchester model 1866, though it didn't actually carry the Winchester name on it) used a rimfire cartridge.

In 1873, the New Haven Repeating Arms Company, which was owned by Oliver Winchester and had become successful selling the Henry and yellowboy rifles, introduced the first rifle to bear Oliver Winchester's name. It was the Winchester model 1873. The new rifle was chambered for a new cartridge, which Winchester called the ".44 Winchester Central Fire", which was abbreviated on the barrel of the rifle as "44 WCF." Of course, we now refer to cartridges as being either rimfire or "centerfire." In those early days, though, Winchester called it "central fire." It was a big selling point, as central fire meant that the cartridges could be reloaded in the field with a simple reloading kit. Rimfire cartridges, of course, could not.

Every piece of Winchester literature from the time uses the term "central fire." Other manufacturers did, too. It was much later that the term "centerfire" became commonplace.

Winchester soon added other calibers to this line of cartridges, including the .38 WCF, .32 WCF and .25 WCF.

The Winchester 1873 rifle was incredibly successful, and millions were sold. Other companies decided to offer firearms chambered for the same cartridge. For example, in 1878 Colt introduced a version of its Single Action Army revolver chambered for the .44 WCF cartridge. This model carried a special name: "Frontier Six Shooter." The idea was to offer cowboys a sidearm that used the same ammunition as their repeating rifles.

Colt and Winchester were rivals, however. Colt dominated the handgun market, and Winchester dominated the rifle market. Neither trusted the other. Colt was not about to promote Winchester by putting the Winchester name on its new Frontier Six Shooter. It may not have been able to, anyway, as Winchester had registered the cartridge's name as a trademark, and would not license it to Colt.

So Colt and other manufacturers solved the problem by renaming the cartridge. They called it the .44-40, for a .44 caliber (actually .427 but that's another story) bullet pushed by 40 grains of black powder (the original load of the .44 WCF). Now manufacturers could chamber guns for the .44 Winchester Central Fire cartridge without using the Winchester or WCF trademarks.

Similarly, the .38 WCF, .32 WCF and .25 WCF cartridges became known generically as the .38-40, .32-30 and .25-20, respectively.

The entire purpose of the "caliber-dash-grains" name was to avoid using the Winchester or WCF names and trademarks, so it would make no sense to use both the -40 AND the Winchester name.

The fact that some people (and some loading manuals) confuse the name doesn't change the history. If you look, though, I am willing to bet that you will NEVER find a firearm marked "38-40 Winchester." They will either be marked "38WCF" or "38-40."

 

[1911 guy]

Father knows Best

is right, dav. The original term used was "central" versus "center". I also believe he's correct in saying it was a Winchester round. The designation was used to diferentiate it from the lower powered handgun round commonly used. Nobody wanted to put the Win. name on their guns, especially colt, but they had to specify cartridges because Bad Things happened when the rifle round was put in a handgun. It would chamber and I have seen one revolver on a shop wall that had, shall we say, structural failure.

 

[dav]

Thanks for the informative post, Father Knows Best.

Nice to find out the real history on stuff. I never could figure out what the -xx was for on those rounds. With 30-06 the '06 is the year (I believe), but -40 didn't make any sense.

 

[BluesBear]

Yup. I'm sure. I'm kind of an authority on cartridge development from the Civil War until the advent of smokeless powders in the 1890s.

That you may very well be.
And while you are semi-correct regarding it's original name. It was originally called the Winchester .38 Central Fire and later referred to simply as the .38 WCF or .38-40. It was originally available, depending on manufacturer in loadings of either 38 grains or 40 grains of black powder, it should have been called either the .40-38 or the .40-40.

So what we commonly know today as the .38-40 Winchester has been most commonly called the .38 WCF or .38-40. However it has also been known as the .38 Marlin, the .38 Remington and the .38-40 Colt. This is because there were already the smaller, straight walled .38 Colt and .44 Colt cartridges.

If you search you can find referrences to .38-40 Colt ammunition and even chamberings. Especially in regard to the Lightning Rifles and Carbines.
I have seen .38-40 Colt (as well as .44-40 Colt) used both on ammunition box labels and in catalogues. You can also find .38-40 Colt & .44-40 Colt headstamps as well as .38 Marlin and .44 Marlin. I know because I used to have one each of all four in my collection.
Regarding firearms, just this past Saturday, I was fondling a immaculate, Colt Baby Lightning rifle chambered in (according to the barrel markings) .44-40 Colt.
It was only $5,000. I didn't buy it since it didn't have a picatenny rail or a bayonet lug.

When I was young, I knew a small town police officer who actually carried a Colt New Service revolver chambered in .38-40 Colt. I remember it so well because it was the first one I ever saw. At that time I had heard of the .38-44 but not the .38-40.
I don't know how old it was but there wasn't a spec of rust nor of the original blue to be found on it. I know it sure was a lot smoother to shoot than my Grandfathers 1892 Navy and it kicked a heck of a lot more.
He told me his Chief told him he could carry any .38 caliber revolver he wanted to. He said it was the biggest 38. He also said that .38-40 Colt ammo was for revolvers and .38-40 Winchester was higher velocity meant only for rifles.

Now I personally don't consider myself to be an authority on anything but I do know I have seen a gun (and ammunition) marked .38-40 Colt.