Several Off The Wall Questions About Old Guns

[Skofnung]

Ok, here I am again. I have a few more questions regarding old guns.

1) The factory conversion of the Remington New Model Army revolver to metallic cartidges was available in .46 caliber rimfire and .44 centerfire. Exactly what was the official designation of that .44 centerfire? .44 Remington? .44-40? Some other obscure round?

2) How did the conversion work? Did it have a loading gate? Was it a 5 shot only deal like the SAA? Was it reliable?

3) This question involves the S&W New Model No. 3 in .44 Russian. Was itn safe to shoot smokeless powder in this gun/cartridge combo? Was factory loaded smokeless .44 Russian available in or after 1895?

4) We all know what many of the common cartridges (rifle and pistol) of the 19th century were here in the US, but what about elsewhere in the world? I'm not so much concerned with military rounds, as finding out what these were is a fairly easy task. What I am wondering is, what kind of rifle would a British Colonist (think poor farmer here) in South Africa have hanging over the fireplace? What about a wealthy sahib over in India?

Thanks again for your help!

 

[Jim K]

That is quite a list, but I will try a couple. The 1868 .46 RF Remington conversions were 5 shot, as the .46 case is quite a bit bigger in diameter than the .44 Remington. The .46 was made specifically for the Remington New Model, which had a barrel larger than the nominal .44. These conversions were done under an agreement with S&W as the Rollin White patent was still in effect.

The later conversions to .44 were done in a number of ways. One factory conversion used a thin recoil plate, and cut off the percussion part of the cylinder while retaining the inner part, then pinning on a plate with the holes; it used an ejector rod. Another factory conversion used a plate with notches in it to allow the hammer to strike the primer of the cartridge; the cylinder had to be removed, and the plate removed to eject the empties and reload. Obviously, no ejector was needed.

The .44 Remington cartridge was called just that; it is nearly identical to the .44 Colt, though the Remington cartridge used a heavier bullet (248 gr vs 210 gr for the Colt). The .44-40 or .44 Winchester Center Fire (WCF) is a much fatter cartridge and will not fit in guns chambered for either the .44 Remington or the .44 Colt.

The .44 Russian was first loaded in 1870 and was carried in American ammo lines until the 1950's, at which time the load was smokeless powder; I don't know when the change was made. The case and bullet diameter are the same as the .44 Special, whereas the .44 American case is smaller. I think the factory smokeless loads would be OK in a Moel 3 but they are collector's items today. Cases can be made by trimming .44 Special or .44 Magnum brass and using very light loads from the .44 Special tables. Extreme caution is advised, though; the guns are valuable and a hot load can make a $3000 revolver a piece of junk very quickly.

I know little about late 19th century South Africa farmers or Indian colonialists, but the prime firearm of most farmers has always been the shotgun, usually the double barrel. Repeating shotguns were available in England and the colonies only if imported, as England made none. I assume that Belgian or American shotguns would have been available at much less cost than English guns.

While a single shot rifle might be found, I would expect that the rifle would be a .303 military type rifle, or a surplus Martini-Henry in either .450 or .303; other possibilites would be either American (Winchester) or German (Mauser) rifles. English double rifles would be beyond the reach of most ordinary farmers, with an inexpensive one (c. 1900) running 21 pounds, and a top quality one about 85 pounds ($4200-17,000 in modern American dollars).

A double rifle would be needed only for hunting dangerous game, and I doubt farmers went in for that kind of sport. A .303 would have been fine for putting food on the table.

The "sahib" would be more likely to have several good double shotguns, and probably at least one double rifle, plus revolvers for defense against rebellious natives.

HTH

Jim

 

[Sunray]

No offense, but books about firearms abound. Start in your local public library and read everything they have.
"...what kind of rifle would a British Colonist...' The question is, when? Your American colonial period is typical of that period. Rifles were as expensive then as they are now. Depending on when and where, a colonist may or may not have had a rifle at all. A musket would be more likely. At least prior to when the domestic gunmakers got established. Smooth bores would have been more practical as they can use shot or ball. However, it really depends on what time period you're thinking about.

 

[Skofnung]

No offense back to you Sunray, but I have read everything that I've been able to get my hands on. I have a fairly large collection of books on firearms myself, but the questions that I have asked I have found no answers to in books. At least not any that I have come across.

My question was fairly specific about a timeframe... 19th century... Cartridge guns... Thus the latter half of the 19th century. Perhaps I was not clear enough for you on that point.


Thanks again Mr. Keenan, as always you have been most helpful.