Cas City Forum Hall & CAS-L
Special Interests - Groups & Societies => 1860 Henry => Topic started by: cactus joe on December 14, 2010, 07:27:32 PM
-
I was just wondering after reloading a batch of .45 long colt ammo, for my hungry henry, how the .44 rim fire original cartrige of yesteryear would stack against the .44-40 or the .45 long colt, say for white tail hunting at ranges of 50 to 75 yards, or just billistically at the range. I'm not planning on taking it on any buffalo hunts like kevin costner of course.anyone out there have any thoughts?
-
Accuracy and luck are everything. Buffalo have been killed from horseback with the 44rf, but that was at point blank range and with how many shots? A record griz was killed in Canada with a 22lr by a native American picking blueberries.....but what does that tell us?
If one were to hunt deer with a 44rf Henry(or '66), one better be a damned good shot and make the first one count, because you cant see a thing through the BP smoke, and not all deer drop like a rock when hit.
Another point, to gain perspective, is successful hand gun hunting with revolvers before the magnum era. Again, accuracy and luck are everything.
J.L.
J.L.
-
...A record griz was killed in Canada with a 22lr by a native American picking blueberries.....but what does that tell us?...
Uhh, avoid berry pickin' in Canada. ;D :D ;)
-
Uhh, avoid berry pickin' in Canada. ;D :D ;)
Ummm... berry good answer :)
-
... A record griz was killed in Canada with a 22lr by a native American picking blueberries ... J.L.
Joe,
I recall reading about that. Young girl and her brother out gathering and ended up in a tree with the bear coming after them? Do you have the article or a site to read it? I thought it was a Single shot rifle and she used 22 shorts. If I remember it correctly she shot it 6 or 8 times and after it died the kids went back to camp and only mentioned the incident after a couple of days. Wish I could find my copy of the thing. If you can help out, it would be appreciated.
As for the 44 Henry, I believe it about equals the 45 Cowboy Special when both use black powder. When I get the time, I'll check my books.
-
Howdy
The 44 Henry Rimfire cartridge had between 26 and 28 grains of Black Powder under a 200 grain lead bullet. That load can be exactly duplicated by the 45 Schofied cartridge. It had considerably less power than the 44-40 or 45 Colt cartridge which nominally held about 38 grains of powder. As a matter of fact, the 44-40 round with a 200 grain bullet was developed specifically as a more powerful round to replace the 44 rimfire.
As far as modern firepower is concerned, the 44 Rimfire round fired out of a rifle had about the same muzzle energy as a modern 357 Magnum fired out of a revolver.
-
thanks for the info. I reload with smokless powder, so i shouldn't have a problem with smoke getting a 2nd shot, as far blueberry picking, so far no grizzlies have snuck up behind me that i know of, but i'll try not to let my guard down.
-
Smokeless in a Henry?
Blasphemy :)
-
I knew that was comming. i hated to admit it, but i use the same powder in my other 2 deer rifles, and so i only have to keep 1 kind of powder around and i don't get mixed up on my loaden, i am easily confused nowadays.
-
Smokeless in a Henry?
Blasphemy :)
Too true. ;D
-
I knew that was comming. i hated to admit it, but i use the same powder in my other 2 deer rifles, and so i only have to keep 1 kind of powder around and i don't get mixed up on my loaden, i am easily confused nowadays...
I know what you mean. I am trying to limit the numbers of powders on my bench. So far it is down to black, Unique, Bullseye and one other I need for a double rifle. Unique is slowly being replaced by black so soon it will be down to three. 2.7 grains of B'eye under the 148 WC just can't be beat. The only load I use with B'eye. Black goes in eveything else.
-
...The 44 Henry Rimfire cartridge had between 26 and 28 grains of Black Powder under a 200 grain lead bullet. That load can be exactly duplicated by the 45 Schofied cartridge ...
As far as modern firepower is concerned, the 44 Rimfire round fired out of a rifle had about the same muzzle energy as a modern 357 Magnum fired out of a revolver...
You can also come pretty close with the 44 Colt (okay maybe not considered a modern load). Actually most of the early rounds, rimfire or centerfire, were on the light side of the power spectrum. I count the 50-70 as being the first of the heavy hitters and that was not followed until 1873 when the 45 long Colt, 45-70 and 44 WCF were introduced. Until 1873, most of the handgun cartridges were fairly anemic. Even after 1873, few cartridges were what we would consider powerful.
-
You can also come pretty close with the 44 Colt (okay maybe not considered a modern load). Actually most of the early rounds, rimfire or centerfire, were on the light side of the power spectrum. I count the 50-70 as being the first of the heavy hitters and that was not followed until 1873 when the 45 long Colt, 45-70 and 44 WCF were introduced. Until 1873, most of the handgun cartridges were fairly anemic. Even after 1873, few cartridges were what we would consider powerful.
I suspect you could also make a good "heavy hitter" argument for the Spencer cartridges and probably some of the early Brit cartridges of the day...
-Chris
-
Howdy Again
I will agree, some of the early repeater cartridges were a little bit anemic.
The way I see it, there were a couple of reasons. Most of the 'Heavy Hitter' firearms at the middle of the century were single shots. Sharps, Rolling Block, Trap Door, come to mind. With a single shot, you can make the action big and strong. With 19th Century iron and steel, big meant strong. But a repeater built that big and massive would have to have really big parts inside and it would weigh a ton. Kind of like the Winchester 1876.
If you look at the history of the Henry, it was actually a step up in power from its predecessor the Volcanic. The Volcanic fired that anemic little Rocket Ball. I dunno how much powder it held, but it sure wasn't much. In fact, probably most of the reason for the financial failure of the Volcanic was because the ammo was so anemic. They just did not sell. When Oliver Winchester took over most of the old Volcanic company, he was busy selling off the stock of Volcanic firearms already built, but at the same time he got B. Tyler Henry working on a better replacement. First thing he did was instruct Henry to come up with a rimfire cartridge to replace the Rocket Ball. But Henry's first effort was a 38 cal rimfire, probably because that was the caliber many of the Volcanics had been. Winchester told him to go back to the drawing board and come up with a 44 cal rimfire. The 44 Henry Rimfire round was the result. Just a simple staight, copper rimfire case, but it held about 26 to 28 grains of powder, which was a lot more than the Rocket Ball did. The 44 rimfire was a good cartridge for the bronze framed Henry and Winchester 1866. Not too powerful because their actions were not real strong.
When 1873 rolled around, the Winchester Model 1873 was introduced. Part of the reason for the new model was for a more powerful cartridge. That's why the 1873 had an iron frame, to take the punishment of the more powerful 44-40 round. Later on, the 1873 had a steel frame, so it would have been even stronger.
Same thing with revolvers. Up until about 1872, S&W still controlled the Rollin White patent for bored through cylinders. If you tried to built a cartridge revolver with bored through chambers for cartridges, you would get sued. S&W was very vigilant about policing the White patent. So most of the cartridge guns being made then were conversions of C&B revolvers, and most of those did not have a top strap. Most were of the Colt style of open tops with the barrel assembly attached by a wedge. Not a very good platform for a powerful cartridge. So many of those conversions were chambered for less powerful cartridges like 44 Henry, and a few other cartridges. I'm not sure when the 44 Colt came about, but it definitely did not have the same powder capacity as the 45 Colt. As for S&W, they contented themselves mostly with cartridges like 44 Schofield and 44 Russian. Both relatively short cartridges without a huge powder capacity. S&W favored the Schofield round because their cylinders were not long enough to accept the more powerful 45 Colt round. Therein lies a whole nother story. Remington did produce some cartridge conversions under license from S&W for their solid frame revolvers, but I am not sure what caliber they were. Probably 44 Henry. Definitely not 45 Colt.
It wasn't until the White patent finally expired around 1872 that Colt came out with the solid framed SAA, capable of harnessing a cartridge as powerful as 45 Colt. And it truly was a powerhouse in its day. 38 to 40 grains of powder under a 250 grain bullet. About 1875 or so the Schofield came out, but like I say, it chambered a less powerful cartridge. Remington came out with their new solid frame cartridge revolver in 1875. I don't have it handy right now just what cartridge it was chambered for, but being a solid frame, I'm sure it could handle a powerful handgun cartridge. Probably 44-40.
It was not until 1878 that Winchester came out with a really big, heavy repeating rifle capable of handling the big powerful rifle rounds of the day. And it was not until 1886 that Winchester came out with a lever gun that could handle the 45-70.
One thing about Browning's designs like the '92 and the '86 that some folks don't realize is that in addition to being lighter and stronger than their predecessor the '73, they were also less expensive to produce. You got a stronger, lighter gun for less money. At least they cost less to build, I dunno if the savings were passed on to the buying public.
-
I have two full boxes of original .44 Henry Rim Fire ammunition, one Winchester and one UMC. Both are loaded with a 200 grain bullet and 28 grains of black powder. I have one full box of UMC .45 Long Colt loaded with a 250 grain bullet and 40 grains of black powder. I also have one full unopened 20 round packet of .45 Long Colt loaded and dated March 1874 by Frankfort Arsenal. These have a 250 grain bullet and 30 grains of black powder. When I was in high school (over 40 years ago) I had a Winchester model 1866 saddle ring carbine and 50 or so rounds of original RF ammunition. After school one day, a friend and I took the carbine and the ammunition out to his grandparents ranch and shot gophers. Between the two of us, we fired about 15 to 20 rounds. Most all of the RF ammunition went off, but half a dozen did not ignite. We did manage to drill a few gophers and I still have the spent copper cases, as well as the loaded rounds that didn't go off. It was an experience of a life time, especially for someone like me who has loved old Winchesters since I was 8 or 9 years old. By that time in my life I had carried an 1892 Winchester carbine in .44-40 for several years and had fired hundreds of rounds through that gun. I was actually surprized by the .44 RF in comparing it to the .44-40. I thought they were very much alike in the way they shot and the recoil.
-
...S&W favored the Schofield round because their cylinders were not long enough to accept the more powerful 45 Colt round...
It wasn't until the White patent finally expired around 1872 that Colt came out with the solid framed SAA, capable of harnessing a cartridge as powerful as 45 Colt. And it truly was a powerhouse in its day. 38 to 40 grains of powder under a 250 grain bullet...
Since the S&W Schofield was a new design they could have made it for the .45 Colt but chose not to. The reason accepted by most historians ( and most probable) is that Daniel Wesson wanted his own proprietary revolver ctg. as there was bitter rivalry between S&W & Colt at the time.
On another note, the Colt SAA was designed BEFORE the .45 Colt ctg. was conceived. W.B. Franklin, then president of Colt, actually recommended the military use the .44 Russian ctg. and went so far as to submit targets shot with both the .44 Russian & .44 S&W American, in a Colt SAA respectively chambered, to show why he felt that the Russian was a better round. However, the Terry board of 1872 recommended standardization with .45 cal. as they had just approved what was to become the '73 SA Trapdoor. It was then that the military ordered Colt to design a .45 pistol ctg. for their new SAA and this round only used a 30 gr. charge of BP. It was later that commercial ctg. makers loaded it to 40 gr.
This is all covered in the Colt Peacemaker "Bible", the Kopec book. Interestingly, what we now know as the Colt '72 Open Top bested the Colt SAA in military tests but the military was sold on a solid frame revolver at this time.
-
...I will agree, some of the early repeater cartridges were a little bit anemic.
Driftwood, I see you and I are pretty much on the same page.
...Most were of the Colt style of open tops with the barrel assembly attached by a wedge. Not a very good platform for a powerful cartridge. ... I'm not sure when the 44 Colt came about,...
The 44 was a product of hte early 1870s, perhaps 71.
...Remington did produce some cartridge conversions under license from S&W for their solid frame revolvers, but I am not sure what caliber they were. Probably 44 Henry. Definitely not 45 Colt...
I believe Remington cut there conversions for the 46 Rimfire in a 5 shot cylinder.
...It wasn't until the White patent finally expired around 1872 that Colt came out with the solid framed SAA, capable of harnessing a cartridge as powerful as 45 Colt. And it truly was a powerhouse in its day. 38 to 40 grains of powder under a 250 grain bullet. About 1875 or so the Schofield came out, but like I say, it chambered a less powerful cartridge. Remington came out with their new solid frame cartridge revolver in 1875. I don't have it handy right now just what cartridge it was chambered for, but being a solid frame, I'm sure it could handle a powerful handgun cartridge. Probably 44-40...
The 1875 was built in 44 WCF but also a couple of others, the brain is not working right now to be able to tell you what ones.
... And it was not until 1886 that Winchester came out with a lever gun that could handle the 45-70...
Let's not forget that Marlin was there in 1881.
Self contained cartridgesnot needing additional priming, were a huge leap in ammuntion technology and like many huge leaps it had to wait for the rest of the industry to catch up to in order to make full use of the progress. The Burniside and Gallagers were miles ahead of the muzzleloading muskets, not as powerful but they still lead the way.
-
Howdy Fox Creek Kid
Thanks for your notes on the first SAA cartridges. I have read some accounts which say as much. I guess my point was the solid frame of the SAA was better suited to a cartridge as powerful as the commercial load of the 45 Colt.
Regarding S&W and the Schofield round, I have read accounts on both sides. Certainly if they had wanted to the Schofield could have been chambered for 45 Colt, but it would have required a longer cylinder. The longer cylinder might have required a longer frame. Recent replicas of the Schofield exhibit how badly the original length frame performs with a stretched cylinder and Black Powder since the gas ring has been extensively modified. Since the Schofield frame was a new version of the #3 frame, I dunno if it would have been more expensive or not to retool for a stretched frame. Certainly, some of the later #3 S&W top break designs had cylinders long enough for cartridges like 38-40 and 44-40, but I do not know how well they performed with Black Powder in the binding department.
I have read that Daniel Wesson rued the day he decided not to chamber the Schofield for 45 Colt, but I dunno if that is factual or not. S&W certainly did not sell as many Schofields to the Army as Colt did SAAs. And the Army surplussed the Schofields out pretty early. It looks to me like a grand total of only around 8,000 Shcofields were ever made.
In any case, as usual, I welcome your comments.
Buck Stinson:
Have you taken any of those 30 grain Frankfort Arsenal rounds apart? I have always wondered if they put cardboard wads in to fill up the space as with the Carbine loads for the 45-70. I have one Frankfort Arsenal 45 Colt round in my collection, made in December of 1913. It is the only one I have and I do not want to take it apart. This particular round has an exceptionally large diameter rim, about .540 in diameter, much larger than most old 45 Colt cartridges and larger than most modern rounds too.
-
Driftwood, I believe that the .45 colt cartridge with the large rim diameter you have was made for the Colt 1909 revolver(AKA New Service) Army adopted them as sort of a stop-gap measure before the 1911 came along, but they had problems with the ejector star slipping past the rims. Since the New Service had enough space between the chambers, they just made it with a larger rim. I have read that the rims on those were too large to load all the chambers on an SAA.
Edit......It occurs to me that the one you have would most likely be loaded with smokeless powder, since it wasn't meant for the SAA, but for a New Service instead.
-
A better question might be, "Why were the early cartridge guns so much better than percussion guns?' Other than hunting a buffalo or a big bear, why would a man on the frontier be better equipped with a repeater and several boxes of ammo than a single shot rifle, a bag of bullets, a can of powder and a box of primers?
-
...And the Army surplussed the Schofields out pretty early. It looks to me like a grand total of only around 8,000 Shcofields were ever made...
Driftwood, the Military actually was trying to buy MORE Schofields from S&W but it was nixed by S&W. Two reasons are offered of which I personally believe to be true. S&W was developing their new DA model as many believed it was the future. Secondly, dealing with the U.S. gov't on any level is a pain as they are finicky and they pay poorly. ;) Another factor was that S&W had developed a fantastic world market and that the world wanted the new fangled "self cockers". The exact inverse of today's gun market in that at that time more money was to be made abroad.
Shotgun Franklin, then as now people detested reloading a percussion revolver as it was tediously slow, especially under siege by hostiles. Also, they were more susceptible to inclement weather & the military issued paper ctgs. and not "powder & ball" which was susceptible to dampness and many broke open due to primitive transportation, i.e., wagon.
-
I have read that in the very early days of cartridge ammo you could expect about 3 to 5 misfires per 50 but that level of failure was still much less than you'd get out of a percussion gun. In nearly every situation I can think of I'd rather have a 7 to 16 shot repeater than a single shot.
-
I have read that in the very early days of cartridge ammo you could expect about 3 to 5 misfires per 50 but that level of failure was still much less than you'd get out of a percussion gun...
Not necessarily. ;) A PROPERLY maintained & loaded cap 'n ball revolver is almost bulletproof (no pun intended ;D). There are several primary historical accounts (one being about Wild Bill) whereas civilians, usually in hostile country, discharged their weapons every morning and carefully reloaded as to insure ignition every time. Naturally, this alerted the hostiles as to their location, but if they were travelling in a large & heavily armed group they usually had little to fear. This raises the dichotomy of whether it is better to discharge and alert the hostiles as to your presence but have a 100% functioning weapon or the inverse, i.e., risking damp charges so as not to alert the hostiles.
Needless to say, not having to discharge & reload to insure reliability was a huge advantage of self contained metallic cartridges.
-
Under ideal conditions it's possible to get close to 100% but not even at a match are cap&ball that reliable. I see'm drop out of stages all the time. I can only imagine trying to keep up with one in the field. That's why people who used their guns to stay alive immediately went to cartridge gun when they became available, even Wild Bill.
-
In answer to Driftwood Johnson's question. I've never pulled the bullets from any of the early Frankfort Arsenal pistol ammunition. As I said, my 20 round 1874 dated box is full and sealed. The draw string has never been pulled. I have two others in my collection of single rounds, but the value is such that I wouldn't want to pull either of them apart either. I can tell you that the two single rounds as well as the 1874 dated box are all Benet primed copper cases. One of the two single rounds is for the .45 Long Colt and the rim diameter is .503. The other single round is the short version that was intended for both the S&W Schofield and the Colt Single Action, The rim diameter on this one is .513. I have several 1875 to 1880 vintage rounds with the WRACo. headstamp and the rim diameter on these is .499. Hope this will be of interest.
-
...That's why people who used their guns to stay alive immediately went to cartridge gun when they became available, even Wild Bill.
When J.W. Hardin was captured in 1877 he was wearing an 1860 percussion Colt. I think he probably qualified as one of those who wanted to "stay alive immediately". ;) However, we're way off topic here anyway.
-
Sorry to dredge up an old one, but there seems to be a lot of speculation here that facts can fix.
The 44 RF was designed in the late 50s to 1860, as it was the cartridge for the Henry (1860). Remember that metal fabrication and materials were rudimentary, and a folded-head rim-fire case was but one of many weak cartridge designs. The fact is the 22 and 44 RFs were the cheapest, easiest to make, reliable, and good-obturating designs of the time. But the early copper cases (and the thin-ness required by their folded-head design) made them poor pressure vessels, and hence more inclination towards light loads (though, as pointed out, incrementally stronger than the rocket balls of the volcanic).
The other aspect is this incremental improvement. Technologically, it's quite rare to have a major leap forward that skips steps. Guns are no different. The switch over from flintlock to percussion happened fairly quick, but the change from smoothbore muskets to rifled rifles happened slower, and we can find all four permutations of these combinations in different countries/armies, especially in the 25 years before the US Civil War. Self-contained ammunition is no different. The Rocket-Ball was the beginning of the concept from a muzzle-loading point of view. Then someone said, let's stick a percussion cap under the ball, and the 22 RF was born. Then someone combined the rocket ball and 22RF and we got the 44 RF, but they also wanted more power. With the restrictions of the types of cases involved as I described above, they avoided going too far (which is unsafe from a business point of view too - if it fails, you might go under for wasting too much capitol on a bad/non-recoverable/non-saleable idea), so you get the "weak" 44RF.
To the folks in the 1860s and 70s who chose/preferred Henrys and 66s, 16 quick shots with quick reloading was a fair trade-off compared to having one shot that was more powerful.
As to the original poster's question, I think we must remember that looking backwards from an era where we have 460 S&W and 500 S&W Magnums (or even just looking at the most popular magnum pistol, the 44 Mag.) or the 30-06, 338 Magnum, etc., yes, the 44 RF looked pathetically anemic. It was, after all, designed and produced as a rifle round first and a pistol round secondarily (because Colt and S&W could see the market 10 years after the 44RF first emerged). But let's look at it another way --
Not many in the personal defense field today snicker at or deride the 45ACP as a good cartridge. Stick it in an SMG like a Thompson, and most people think the 45 is quite impressive as an offensive weapon... Well, taking into consideration bore diameter, velocity, bullet weight, and rapidity of fire and reloading, it's not a far stretch to think of the 1860/1866 as the Thompson SMG of the old west. That's the perspective I think one should take when looking at these rifles, because to the folks back then coming out of the muzzle-loading era, it's a similar technological advance. Makes one feel a lot better about the 44 RF, doesn't it? :D In a similar vein, the Trapdoor Springfield could be looked at as the M-1 Garand of the old west (because the Trapdoors reload-ability was that much of an improvement over muzzleloaders, it's similar in tactical improvement to the self-loading Garand over a bolt-action). And, just as our military had Garands and Thompsons in WWII, for slightly different expected tactical needs of combat, the old west had single shots and repeaters, and which one you wanted depended on your beliefs/expectations of your tactical needs (taking away the two most common limitations on this choice - your finances and availability of the weapon).
So, if you'd respect the idea of the 45ACP or maybe the 40S&W as a "powerful" or effective cartridge today, I suggest you view the 44RF in an identical frame of reference.
-
We also must consider, the Henry was originally conceived as a military arm and as such, the very first iteration of the Assault Rifle. Sales to civilians only became an option when the hierarchy of the military balked at such a quantum leap of technology. Some, who controlled military decisions felt rapid loading arms would only result in wasted ammunition.
In an actual combat situation, very few casualties result at ranges exceeding 75 yards. Studies have been done as to the number of rounds fired per casualty and the numbers are staggering. In the 10s of thousands. Hence the doctrine of Volume of Fire which begat modern assault weapons.
Personally, I wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of a .44 Henry Flat nor it's Colt inspired close cousin at anything inside 100 yards. Some closer for hand guns. Those cartridges were originally conceived to be very effective on basically soft skinned (us) targets. And they were.
Coffinmaker
PS: I shoot a cartridge in my Henry rifles and Open Tops that closely duplicates the "old" load and it is a HOOT to load up 17 rounds and fire away. Now, if someone would just write a 15 round stage ............ ;D
-
Under ideal conditions it's possible to get close to 100% but not even at a match are cap&ball that reliable. I see'm drop out of stages all the time............
I must live a pure & charmed life as I've never had to hand one off in near 15 years of CAS/WAS...Don't get me wrong, I've had a hiccup or two...but have always gotten my rounds off under the clock ;)
Slim
-
44 Russian is the obtainable round that most closely duplicates the 44 Henry,.....you would still have to make them yourself.....
Buck,.....I think if you look at your FA 45 Colts you have a 12 round box and not a 20,.....does it look like this?.....
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v114/Sgt_John_Chapman/Box%20Repos/ammunition-aug1874-300.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v114/Sgt_John_Chapman/Box%20Repos/DSCF0695.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v114/Sgt_John_Chapman/Box%20Repos/DSCF0559.jpg)
-
44 Russian is the obtainable round that most closely duplicates the 44 Henry,.....you would still have to make them yourself.....
Like Coffinmaker and Sgt. Chapman, I've converted to a modern-day, center-fire, reloadable simulation of the 44 Henry RF Flat, using the 44 Russian as the basis. I looked into all the permutations and possibilities of other rounds, such as the 44 Colt & 44 Special. The bottom line for me was that it was most-similar to the Henry to copy it's cartridge OAL, and make a slight sacrifice on the amount of powder that could be fitted into the case...
Researching the 44 Henry RF can be complicated and confusing. Barnes' Cartridges of the World does a fair job of sorting it out. There were two versions of the cartridge, with slightly different case lengths. I think this can also explain some of the variation one reads about in powder charges and bullet weights. (You'll often read that the 44 Henry was loaded with from 26 to 28grs of powder and a 200 or 216gr bullet.) I found a terrific RNFP bullet to case to simulate the original. It's flat point is a little bigger than the originals, but it's close. It weighs 208grs lubed and cast from 1:30 tin to lead, and it let's me match the OAL of the shorter 44 Henry round (which I believe is the older version of the two versions). Unfortunately, with solid-head construction, the 44 Russian case combined with this bullet doesn't let me get as much powder in. I load with 3f black powder to get as much as possible in, but it's still short of 26grs, by quite a piece...
No one (including me) can really tell or cares, because it IS close, and the smoke and flash are great, and the recoil differences in this weight of rifle are non-existent. It's as good as we can get without getting someone to start making the originals again (which is highly unlikely, I'm afraid).
-
Summarizing..two best bets are:
If you want to duplicate the Henry cartridge performance, I suggest the 44-40 downloaded to 28 grains of powder.
Easily done....& the 44-40 cartridge seals the chamber nicely, you won't have to deal with blow-back.
if you want to duplicate the appearance of the Henry cartridge, the .44 Russian case is close.
Slim
-
...If you want to duplicate the Henry cartridge performance, I suggest the 44-40 downloaded to 28 grains of powder.
Easily done....& the 44-40 cartridge seals the chamber nicely, you won't have to deal with blow-back...
That is what I do.
-
Summarizing..two best bets are:
If you want to duplicate the Henry cartridge performance, I suggest the 44-40 downloaded to 28 grains of powder.
Easily done....& the 44-40 cartridge seals the chamber nicely, you won't have to deal with blow-back.
if you want to duplicate the appearance of the Henry cartridge, the .44 Russian case is close.
Slim
Yes, except, the "performance" aspect you refer to is it's external ballistics (which I think is the most-common interpretation/use of the word in the context of our discussion). [But] If magazine capacity is a performance measurement (which it is to me, but not most CAS shooters, because of the 10-round loading limits), than that OAL measurement starts knawing at you (me) like a tooth-ache.... :-\
I began wondering if switching to 4f would allow me to get more weight in the restricted volume of the case. I even thought about making a custom reamer to cut the head of the cases (on the inside) to convert modern solid-head 44 Russian cases into balloon-head cases, so a couple more grains of powder would fit inside. (Then the little fairy popped up on my shoulder and asked just how obsessed I needed to be, since these weren't rimfires anyway? So, I stopped, sat the cases down and went and had a beer. ;D )
I guess my overall response is just to clarify that there's more to using the Russian case in simulating the 44 RF than appearance. There's another (lesser thought of) type of "performance," known as magazine capacity (which doesn't come into play in CAS, but matters to a historical-based shooter like me).
-
http://www.cowboy45special.com/
Ok,.....Convert your elevator to function these and go for it,....call it 45 Henry,....look at the crate in my Henry picture real close,.......
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v114/Sgt_John_Chapman/Henry_Pics.jpg)
-
Sgt.,
I've seen your 45 Henry cartridge box before, and I love it! True to the original, but honestly different. Awesome!
I've already converted. Got the carrier from Adirondack Jack a few years ago and got it in my 1866 Improved Henry over the Winter. I load 44 Russian cases to same OAL as 44 Henry RF. Your 45 version probably has a pinch more room in it due to diameter, but I'm guessing you still can't quite get to 26grs? The original RF had a bullet diameter (heel-crimped) of around .445" IIRC, so I'm a little small @ .432" & your a little big @ .452", but we're both close, and we can reload these things! ;D ;) ;D
Nice set-up. I'm working on a civilian Scout/Chief of Indian Scouts persona, circa 1872-3, but I've done some Civil War re-enactg, and you've got a very nice set-up for your persona there.
-
Like Coffinmaker and Sgt. Chapman, I've converted to a modern-day, center-fire, reloadable simulation of the 44 Henry RF Flat, using the 44 Russian as the basis. I looked into all the permutations and possibilities of other rounds, such as the 44 Colt & 44 Special. The bottom line for me was that it was most-similar to the Henry to copy it's cartridge OAL, and make a slight sacrifice on the amount of powder that could be fitted into the case...
Researching the 44 Henry RF can be complicated and confusing. Barnes' Cartridges of the World does a fair job of sorting it out. There were two versions of the cartridge, with slightly different case lengths. I think this can also explain some of the variation one reads about in powder charges and bullet weights. (You'll often read that the 44 Henry was loaded with from 26 to 28grs of powder and a 200 or 216gr bullet.) I found a terrific RNFP bullet to case to simulate the original. It's flat point is a little bigger than the originals, but it's close. It weighs 208grs lubed and cast from 1:30 tin to lead, and it let's me match the OAL of the shorter 44 Henry round (which I believe is the older version of the two versions). Unfortunately, with solid-head construction, the 44 Russian case combined with this bullet doesn't let me get as much powder in. I load with 3f black powder to get as much as possible in, but it's still short of 26grs, by quite a piece...
No one (including me) can really tell or cares, because it IS close, and the smoke and flash are great, and the recoil differences in this weight of rifle are non-existent. It's as good as we can get without getting someone to start making the originals again (which is highly unlikely, I'm afraid).
MMA10mm,
Your primary problem is your bullet. You are using an "inside the case"bullet instead of a heeled bullet. You lose too much space to the bullet.
This is a section view from w44wcf:
(http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o25/w30wcf/44Henry44Coltjpg.jpg)
As you can see it takes a .44 Colt case with the original .44 Colt Heeled Bullet to give you a similar capacity. w44wcf informed me that is the original .44 Colt heeled bullet he shows in the .44 Colt case. The powder volumes are almost identical between the Henry Rim Fire and the Central Fire Colt. The heeled bullets just allow more powder in the case than the inside the case bullets we are familiar with today.
If you use an inside the case bullet and crimp it "correctly" then you have to use a .44 Spl. case to get the correct powder capacity.
I have two .44 Spl rifles (actually one is a carbine) one of them has a carrier just like you have and I use a Mav Dutchman over a case full of FFFg with a heavy compression. But if I want to reproduce the load I use a .44 spl with a full case of FFFg.
This photo includes a sectioned .44 Spl with a 200gr bullet (not a Mav Dutchman). And it has 28 grains of BP in it.
(http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o25/w30wcf/44Spl44Henry44Coltjpg.jpg)
Note that the overall length of the .44 spl is just a bit longer than the overall length of the .44 Henry because it has less bullet sticking out of the case with its' modern internal bullet.
The only way for you to get closer is to replicate the bullet shape where it sticks out of the case. You could get a Custom mold cut by Bernie that would let you use an inside the case bullet, but with the lube groove(s) outside of the case, or perhaps one groove out and one in. You also need a crimping groove behind the groove that is outside the case. Then load it in a .44 Russian case and it would be close.
I'm assuming you are using this in your .44 Spl Carbine, the extra bullet sticking out of the case will have room because of the .44 spl chamber.
~Mako
-
THis is the Hollow based Rapine Slug I use for my 45 Colts....
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v114/Sgt_John_Chapman/Guns/Rapine45ColtSlug.jpg)
-
MMA10mm,
Your primary problem is your bullet. You are using an "inside the case"bullet instead of a heeled bullet. You lose too much space to the bullet.
That's a really good point too Mako, and as I was reading your post I thought about the bullets I've pulled from 44 Webley ammo, and how large of a hollow base there was... And then, the Sarge, like he's reading my mind posts his picture! :D
The only way for you to get closer is to replicate the bullet shape where it sticks out of the case. You could get a Custom mold cut by Bernie that would let you use an inside the case bullet, but with the lube groove(s) outside of the case, or perhaps one groove out and one in. You also need a crimping groove behind the groove that is outside the case. Then load it in a .44 Russian case and it would be close.
I'm assuming you are using this in your .44 Spl Carbine, the extra bullet sticking out of the case will have room because of the .44 spl chamber.
~Mako
Yes, I'm using a 66 in 44Spl., so with the 44 Russian lifter conversion I have really long "throats." ;)
That's an interesting idea for a custom mould. Might work it out in nose-pour configuration and set up a Cramer-style multiple-cavity hollowpointing rig, so I can make them hollow-base as well. Ya got me head-scratchin' and thinking now... Can't use MavDutchman lube grooves with a wide hollow-base, but that extra groove out front would help that.
What COAL are you loading 44 Russian-cased HenryRF simulations? I'm guessing your using the longer version of the Henry ctrdg as your standard?
-
MMA10mm,
Chew on these for a while and we'll talk later. Even the .44 Special with a Mav Dutchman (200 gr.) you can't get 28 grains in. I get about 26 with FFg by volume. If you use a bullet with smaller lube grooves it is shorter and you can get 28 gains, but then you have to be careful about fouling.
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Cartridges/oblique.png)
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Cartridges/Comparison2.png)
Now these are the same cartridges but have the bottom of the bullets lined up so you can compare the capacity of the case after seating the bullets.
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Cartridges/Sectioned2.png)
Note the .44 Colt is actually almost the same overall length with the Mav Dutchman Big lube® bullet. There are several people who do this. Long Johns Wolf and others. I have done it and the .06" shorter OAL than the .44 Special works. I did switch extractors to get a better bite. If you look carefully you will see the .44 Colt case has a Ø.483 Rim unlike the .44 Russian and .44 Special which have a Ø.514 rim.
If you decided to have a custom mold made then think along these lines. To get enough lube you really need two grooves. I show one above and one below:
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Cartridges/HenryBullet.png)
~Mako
-
Here are the chambers. I used SAAMI spec reamers for rifle chambers to create the models.
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Cartridges/Chamber44Spl.png)
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Cartridges/Chamber44RusLongpng.png)
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Cartridges/Chamber44Colt.png)
-
OH MY! :o
Questions and ideas:
On the middle crimp groove bullet - could you change the ogive ahead of the exposed lube groove to make it slightly more tapered (somewhat like a truncated cone) and less rounded? This would copy the sample Henry bullet you're using.
What OAL is the Henry cartridge you are using?
What weight is your middle crimp groove bullet?
What would the Russian case loaded with the middle crimp groove bullet to simulate the Henry look like in a 44 Colt chamber?
I'm gonna have to find some calipers and go check my loaded rounds now... :D
-
OH MY! :o
Questions and ideas:
On the middle crimp groove bullet - could you change the ogive ahead of the exposed lube groove to make it slightly more tapered (somewhat like a truncated cone) and less rounded? This would copy the sample Henry bullet you're using.
You're in luck I had already done that. The one I showed before is actually the second one I created to keep the overall length the "nominal" 1.345" that is normally stated (There are actually a lot of samples of Henty Flat ammo with longer AOLs) These had to be maintained because on the original Henry and 1866 rifles the carrier is actually just a bit longer than the AOL, it's not like today's rifles which all have the carrier size of a '73. Have you ever noticed the .44WCF, .38WCF and .32WCF are all the same length? Unlike today they kept the lengths consistent because that is the "shell stop/cut off" for the rifle. When Uberti made the new Henry and '66 reproductions they made them one length and for modern cartridges, we use all kinds of cartridges that are marginal in their operational length and the rifles still work...
What OAL is the Henry cartridge you are using?
I have been using 1.345" But I am going to show you a profile that will fool the eye into looking more like the original, it is longer but it will work.
What weight is your middle crimp groove bullet?
On the original images it was 200gr. That is why it is short and has the rounded profile, I was "forcing" the shape to keep it at 200 gr. I will be showing you a longer bullet at 215 gr.
What would the Russian case loaded with the middle crimp groove bullet to simulate the Henry look like in a 44 Colt chamber?
Do you really mean a .44 Colt chamber? There are no commercial rifles in that caliber. I have a reamer for .44 Colt, but it is a cylinder reamer, they are different than a rifle or single chamber. I can extrapolate or actually estimate the difference by looking at .44 Special Cylinder and Chamber reamers and chamber dimensions. Are you planning on having a reamer custom ground and a new barrel made or the original set back?
I can show you what it would look like, but make sure it's what you really are asking for. The bullet I have already designed might be too tight in a shortened chamber, we are taking advantage of the excess free bore created by the longer chamber. If you do want a .44 Colt chamber you would have to show them the freebore before the throat to accommodate the bullet sticking further out of the case. It can be done they just need to know what you are doing...
Here are some illustrations:
The longer Ogive bullet, to make it look more like a true Henry Flat round. I'm just calling it the Mako-Henry so we will know what we are talking about. It is about .05" longer out of the case than the other center crimping groove bullet.
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Cartridges/Mako-Henry.png)
The cartridge comparisons:
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Cartridges/NewBullet.png)
The Cross Sections:
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Cartridges/Sectioned3.png)
The new Cartridge in a .44 Special chamber:
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Cartridges/Mako-HenryChamber.png)
This shows the .44 Special superimposed over the new cartridge. The .44 special shows as a transparent "red" you can see how this new cartridge will work well in a .44 Special chamber.
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Cartridges/Superimposed.png)
If you want to have a mold made knock yourself out.
~Mako
-
As evidenced in the many posts above there are many compromises involved (the first being the centerfire case)........
Here is my take on the 44 Henry for the rifle and the same logic applied to 44 pistol cartridges.
It is important to tell you that my first concern was accuracy in the pistol (which has a .451 bore). Then I wanted to duplicate that in a rifle so I bored out the chamber in a Henry repro 45 calibre rifle and soldered in a sleeve which is now chambered for this round. The length of this cartridge fits fine in the pistols and the carrier of the rifle (yes it limits the 1860 capacity somewhat).
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c91/buckoff123/100_1148.jpg)
This shows the "flat" projectile for the rifle (L to R) modified from the original Bernie Rowles mould, then the original Bernie Rowles mould, finally an original Heel Base Lyman/Ideal.
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c91/buckoff123/100_1152.jpg)
This is the flat nose bullet lubed and crimped.
-
A better question might be, "Why were the early cartridge guns so much better than percussion guns?' Other than hunting a buffalo or a big bear, why would a man on the frontier be better equipped with a repeater and several boxes of ammo than a single shot rifle, a bag of bullets, a can of powder and a box of primers?
Well, first off, I would have to say that the ease of reloading in a hurry left less to chance. Next, having powder, primer and projectile encapsulated, in easy carry and pack cartridges, insured less exposure to the elements. Therefore, a better chance of things going boom when they should. With loose makings, a bit of hot cheroot ash in a saddlebag could ruin your day, if not your mount.
And with "luck" being a factor in the middle of nowhere, who to say that you wouldn't run into a griz or rogue bull buffalo or even a band of hostiles, road agents or banditos? "L!"On the tv there was a report of a kyoat running off with a person's lap dog in New Orleans' City Park. Sact happens, and one better be prepared as well as they can.
CP the GunGnome
-
Accuracy and luck are everything. Buffalo have been killed from horseback with the 44rf, but that was at point blank range and with how many shots? A record griz was killed in Canada with a 22lr by a native American picking blueberries.....but what does that tell us?
If one were to hunt deer with a 44rf Henry(or '66), one better be a damned good shot and make the first one count, because you cant see a thing through the BP smoke, and not all deer drop like a rock when hit.
Another point, to gain perspective, is successful hand gun hunting with revolvers before the magnum era. Again, accuracy and luck are everything.
J.L.
I have to differ with you, accuracy is everything. Though luck is part of the equation, there was a third factor. Marriage. These men were married to their firearms. They used them on an almost daily basis, year round. Whether to put food in the pot, to defend themselves in hostile situations, from bears, mountain lions, rabid animals, rogue cattle or buffalo, to simply amusing themselves or others, include gambling with that lot. For the most part, they carried one rifle, and maybe several handguns, with one being their favorite. They had more than a passing familiarity with their tools of the trade. And in that, they knew what accuracy that they could depend on when needed.
CP the GunGnome
-
Based on the bullet size, weight and velocity I believe that the 44 RF is ABOUT equal to .45 ACP from both rifle and handgun. Within 100 yards for a defense round that's not bad.
-
While I see no fault in your reasoning, MMA10mm. I think that there is one more factor to add in favor of the .44 RF Henry round. Though it may considered more so in favor of the rifle chambered for it, than the round itself. And that is the ease of ejecting a misfire and reloading the rifle with such speed and ease, as not to be a major deficit in the shooter's safety.
CP
-
Still, I have a couple of questions that are nagging at me.
First, being the source of ignition, rimfire versus centerfire. As I see it, with rimfire ignition, the powder burns from the outside in. Having the expanding gases pushing the unburnt powder down the bore. Wheras, with centerfire, it burns inside out. Which would centralize the burn and compress the unburnt powder at the breech. I would think that rimfire ignition would have a faster rate of burn than that of centerfire.
Secondly, how different was the original powder from that of today? I know it wouldn't have been tagged like today's modern powders. But, was it glazed as it is today? If not, then it would have a faster rate of burn, would it not?
CP
-
I was just wondering after reloading a batch of .45 long colt ammo, for my hungry henry, how the .44 rim fire original cartrige of yesteryear would stack against the .44-40..........
Joe,
I would say that it would stack up very well indeed. 44 Henry factory velocity with a 200 gr. bullet was 1,125 f.p.s. At that velocity a 200 gr bullet will most likely completely penetrate a deer broadside as it did many man that it connected with.
Most of todays 44-40 ammo isin't going much faster than 1,125 f.p.s. ......and some of it not quite that fast..... (Back in the day, 44-40 factory b.p. ammo was cataloged at 1,301 f.p.s. with a 200 gr bullet and 1,190 f.p.s. with a 217 gr bullet.)
w44wcf
-
Sgt John Chapman,
Nice boxes & labels! Neat! ;D
Hoof Hearted,
Interestingly, a very early advertisement for the Henry Rifle indicated that it could also be made available in .46 caliber so your Henry replication cartridge would be very close to that! ;D
MMA10mm,
Are you shooting the .44 Russians in a .44 Special chamber? If so, you could likely crimp in the back lube groove and increase powder capacity that way......or have a mold made like MAKO's excellent design. ;D
MAKO,
WOW! Wonderful illustrations! Awesome! ;D Nice design on that .44 heeled bullet with the two lube grooves. ;D I have found that by using SWISS powder which is more dense, 28 grs. will fit aok in the 44 Special case with .08" compression (200 gr. bullet .34" seating depth) ...the same compression used in the .44 Henry cartridge I dissected.
For anyone wanting a mold like that, the least expensive option would be www.Accuratemolds.com Tom's are all lathe bored so there would not be a $150 cherry fee that Old West would require (no cherry fee if 12 molds were ordered).
w44wcf
-
Still, I have a couple of questions that are nagging at me.
First, being the source of ignition, rimfire versus centerfire. As I see it, with rimfire ignition, the powder burns from the outside in. Having the expanding gases pushing the unburnt powder down the bore. Wheras, with centerfire, it burns inside out. Which would centralize the burn and compress the unburnt powder at the breech. I would think that rimfire ignition would have a faster rate of burn than that of centerfire.
Secondly, how different was the original powder from that of today? I know it wouldn't have been tagged like today's modern powders. But, was it glazed as it is today? If not, then it would have a faster rate of burn, would it not?
claypipe,
In answer to your questions......
I tested the 28 gr powder charge taken from the 44 Henry cartridge I did the cutaway on and it clocked 1,133 f.p.s. I used a 200 gr bullet from a 44 W.C.F. Winchester mold and a 155 Federal magnum pistol primer. That is just about "spot on" the 1,125 f.p.s. claimed velocity in the 1875 Wincester catalog. I don't think that a standard pistol primer would have given much different results based my experiences between the two in other b.p. cartridges.
The powder had a somewhat glossy appearance and was about 80% 3F and 20% 4F. The powder compression was .08" and perhaps the compression reduced the 3F to 4F(?).
I then tested 28 grs by weight of SWISS 3f and that went almost 1,251 fps. 28 grs of SWISS FFG would be just about right I reckon to replicate the ballistic strength of the powder taken from the 44 Henry. One of these days I'll find out......
w44wcf
-
The powder had a somewhat glossy appearance and was about 80% 3F and 20% 4F. The powder compression was .08" and perhaps the compression reduced the 3F to 4F(?).
The glossy look tells us that the powder was at least polished. But, was it glazed?
The latter part of this statement iis what I find most curious. Was it because of the compression? One way to find out would be to take a modern version of this round and pull it apart to see if that is indeed the case.
But, what if it was an intentional duplex load, seeking to make use of the extra umph provided by means of adiabatic compression? The 4f burns first, super compressing the 3f which heightens its ignition. I wonder, has anyone tried to duplicate this duplex load? What would one get with 23 grains of 3f sitting on top of 5 grains of 4f?
CP
-
Hoof Hearted,
Interestingly, a very early advertisement for the Henry Rifle indicated that it could also be made available in .46 caliber so your Henry replication cartridge would be very close to that! ;D
w44wcf
Interesting! Without causing too much thread drift, can you point me to that source or scan me a copy?
(Walt Kirst has played a bunch with the .45 Cowboy Special brass to duplicate the 46 Remington Rimfire in a centerfire cartridge)
-
MAKO,
WOW! Wonderful illustrations! Awesome! ;D Nice design on that .44 heeled bullet with the two lube grooves. ;D I have found that by using SWISS powder which is more dense, 28 grs. will fit aok in the 44 Special case with .08" compression (200 gr. bullet .34" seating depth) ...the same compression used in the .44 Henry cartridge I dissected.
For anyone wanting a mold like that, the least expensive option would be www.Accuratemolds.com Tom's are all lathe bored so there would not be a $150 cherry fee that Old West would require (no cherry fee if 12 molds were ordered).
w44wcf
w44wcf,
I think you have it backwards, your research and the reporting you have done over the years is what is truly fantastic. Before I started seeing your work under the several "Winchester names" you use on the many forums you have posted on I was always at a loss to what the original cartridges were as an assembly.
Then you do us one better and reconstruct the cartridges using as much of the old components as possible and give us actual velocities and firing reports. BRAVO!!!!
Modeling is simple for me, I've been doing it almost 30 years. I do it now to keep my hand in it (the young Turks will run me over otherwise), especially when I'm on the road. I already had models of the .44 Colt and the .44 modern cartridges for work I had done a while back considering making some Colt conversions with a better lubricated heeled bullet. I literally did that work in a suite I was staying at in the evenings to give me something to do while away from the family.
Your EXCELLENT and well photographed cross sections allowed me to superimpose the outline of the original Henry Flat bullet, it was then easy to model it. I then did a quick mass calculation and it was on the mark for weight. The Henry case was easy to model, I had the external dimensions and I knew the thickness at the mouth, but your cross section showing the case thickness at the base and the priming compound area filled in all of the blank spots.
I want to thank you for all of your gracious contributions to the knowledge base of the 19th century cartridges.
It also helps I have a bunch of Henry pattern rifles and primarily in different .44 calibers as well as most of my cowboy guns are .44s of some flavor. In other words I'm sort of biased towards .44s and I am familiar if not intimate with their different incarnations.
Some day when I grow up (too funny) I want to be just like you. If I can stay retired I want to spend time doing a lot of what you do.
I'm glad you included the link to Tom's site. I forget about him and have Bernie on the mind because he makes the great crimping conversions and the sizing dies "necessary" for the heeled bullets. You could run the bullet I've shown through a standard lubrisizer, and use standard crimping dies.
The best to you JK,
Mako
-
thanks w44wcf thats what i was looking for in my original post. I was wondering what the results would be in a perfect world scenario of firing all 3 cals. .44-40 .45colt and .44rim fire at 100yds at say 3 8pt bucks and hitting them all in the same spot would the .44 rim fire do the same job as the other 2 cartridges. Looks like it will. Also your piece on the 1866 swiss trials further shows the effectives of .44. Scoring that many hits at 830 yds only 50yds shot of a half mile proves that the .44 rim fire cartridge was no whimp.
-
Whew! Couple days away, and a brushfire breaks out! ;D (That's actually good; this was a great topic to begin with and the drift has been just as good!)
Mako, my curiosity about the 44 Colt chamber is because my 1872 Open Top is chambered that way, and I'd want one type of ammo to fit all guns. Your bullet design, seated out, looks like it'll eat up most of the Specials chamber which made me a little concerned it might be too long for the Colt?
While I think your design is ingenious, I'm gonna keep pondering this dilemma. With the brass being longer, but thicker with solid-head 44 Russian brass, there is really no perfect solution I can see (yet). My biggest stumbling block with the designs you posted is that I'd have to grind away so much of the little flapper on the Adirondack lifter, that I'd worry about reliability and resiliency. What do you think?
1.345" does seem to be the right length, regardless of case length, bullet weight, or powder charge. (Which makes sense, since new ammunition designs still have to work in the older rifles and with no cartridge stop, that demands fixed-length ammo...)
I'm guessing the "44 Henry RF Flat" was an attempt to give the Henry/66 designs more power (like superformance ammo today). With the cartridge length restrictions and heel bullet design, the best way to improve the Henry was to add bullet weight. A RNFP puts more lead outside the case than a same-weight & diameter bullet of conical shape (like the original Henry), so that's most-likely my guess of where the 216gr bullet came from.
My next supposition is that Winchester probably started off with a 220 or 225 gr bullet (10-12% increase), but then someone noticed velocity fell off enough that striking energy didn't improve significantly. By judiciously juggling case length, bullet shape and weight,, 2 more grains of powder could be added to retain the same velocity, but now with an 8% heavier bullet, which was still a good improvement for those days.
Lots of assuming on my part, but it easily explains the combination of changes that happened.
I wonder what date the Henry Flat cartridge (as opposed to the original conical-shaped Henry cartridge) came out? If it came out around1866-1868, it could also be an example of marketing (make the new model 1866 more interesting to customers, because it has "more powerful, new loading of the Henry cartridge" type thing). Remember that this is around the time lots of Henrys, Spencers, and a multitude of other guns were hitting the shelves cheap due to the end of the war. Winchester was probably pulling out all the stops.
-
MMA10MM,
You need to buy a lottery ticket today! So far you are batting a 1,000.
I actually have cylinders for Conversions and Open Tops already as well. Flint had been modeling Navy components several years ago and got me started doing it too. I also have an ongoing project to build some Army model conversions of the correct size and caliber , so I have most everything you have asked for. I even had a .44 Colt reamer ground for the heeled bullet so I can simply change the free bore at the cylinder chambers from Ø.451 to Ø.431 and voila! The chamber you wish to see.
This is a Uberti '72 Open Top cylinder with .44 Colt Chambers.
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Cartridges/Cylinder.png) (http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Cartridges/X-Section.png)
This shows the Cylinder Chamber in .44 Colt over the Rifle Chamber in .44 Special:
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Cartridges/both.png)
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Cartridges/both2.png)
There's only .06" of difference in length. The ogive of the bullet I showed you will work for either.
The Henry flat was the 200 grain bullet, I believe the pointed ogive bullets weighed 216 grains. It gets even more confusing when I tell you that the Open Tops were not actually chambered for .44 Henry, they were chambered for .44 Winchester (also called the .42 Stetson Rimfire). I'll let the Fox Creek Kid regale you with that story... But you could use the .44 Win RF in both.
SO the design I did for you is around the 216 grain mark and has the shape of a Henry Flat because we have that extra chamber and the "oversize" carrier. If you ever get the chance to look closely at an original Henry or a Win '66 look at the carrier and it will surprise you how SHORT it looks, since you will have become used to your rifle.
~Mako
-
Boy this has been fun. Including the drift!!! ::)
To run the drift a little further, Playing with Henrys & '66s, in .45 and .44, the OAL for use in the Carrier Block from Adirondack Jack is about 1.165. Anything longer and you wind up having to "modify" the flapper cartridge stop. It doesn't take long and it (the flapper) doesn't stop anymore :-\ Don't ask how I found that out.
I load both the .44 Russian case and the .45 Cowboy Special case with wimpy (gamer) 160Gr RNFP bullets to retain an OAL that will run with AJ's carrier.
You can run a longer cartridge yet shorter than standard .45s or .44s, but you will have to modify the front face of the carrier block and the cartridge return ramp to make it work in a toggle link rifle. I've done that too, but decided it was a whole bunch easier to compromise on the OAL with a 160Gr bullet and run AJ's carriers.
The general OAL is no issue in handguns chambered for .44 Colt or .44 Spl. The problem is getting them to run thru a toggle link rifle. My search began 'cause I wanted 10 rounds in my 16" barrel Henry Trapper chambered in .45 Colt. Got there with the .45CS case, 160Gr bullet and AJ's carrier.
I carried over everything to my .44Spl '66 Trapper with a 16" barrel and it worked a treat. Find a .44Spl Chambered Henry has proved problematic and re-chambering a 44-40 also being a nuisance. So I just took the easy way out and stuck with .45s and .44Spl
This would be so much more fun if there were a reliable supply of Rim Fire, Copper cases for loading (one time). Oh well ...........
Coffinmaker
-
I hate to be the turd in the swimming pool here, but no less an authority than the Mad Monk has stated that the fuliminate of mercury used in 19th century rimfire cases such as the Henry & Spencer gave a boost to the overall velocity of some considerable fps.
-
Phew! This conversation is getting interestinger and interestinger! ;D
I found a pic at a cartridge collector's website that shows all early-production 44 Henry ammo:
(http://www.oldammo.com/44hptd.jpg)
Three of these 4 were certainly produced by New Haven Arms Co., so they predate the '66. The RNFP is one of the NHACo. And the two on the left are as well. The one on the far left has no "H" headstamp, and as such is considered to be of the earliest-style 44 Henry ammo. So, it appears the conical pre-dated the RNFP, but both styles existed before the '66 came to be...
The next thing I noticed is that all of the long-cased ammunition had RNFP bullets, while the short-cased came with both that and conical-style. (There was 44 Henry long-case conical-bullet ammo, but it was obviously longer than would feed in a Henry or 66, and this was recognized by calling it 44 Long or 44 Stevens, and not "Henry".)
Took awhile looking at multiple pics back-and-forth, but I noticed the short-cased RNFP rounds had the most lead sticking out the front of the case. This means that particular combination had either the heaviest bullet (longest with lots of lead out of the case) or the heaviest powder charge (if it's still a 200gr RNFP, there's precious little lead being gripped by the neck, thereby leaving room inside for more powder). Least this is where I'm at at this point...
I don't suppose there's a 44 Henry cartridge collector out there who'd like to donate 20 or so variations for dissection?? ::)
-
Also, I'm not doubting you that the conicals were heavy (216grs) either. I seem to remember reading that before somewhere (COTW?) too.
Maybe the conicals were the heavy bullet (seated especially deep) and that required the lighter powder charge (26grs rather than 28)?
-
The glossy look tells us that the powder was at least polished. But, was it glazed?
The latter part of this statement iis what I find most curious. Was it because of the compression? One way to find out would be to take a modern version of this round and pull it apart to see if that is indeed the case.
claypipe,'
It could very well be that it may have been a blend of 3F and 4F as Dutch Bill as indicated in his research.......
Powder Types.
"During the 19th century a black powder shooter had 3 types of black powder available. These being: Sporting type, Rifle type, and Musket type. Today, the shooter in the U.S. has available one brand of musket type powder and one brand of rifle type powder. I should point out that type of powder has utterly nothing to do with grain size. It is not uncommon to find those who think that the difference in powder types during the 19th century was nothing more than grain sizes. In actuality, each type was formulated and processed to yield a specific burn rate and therefore specific ballistic strength. The ballistic strength having, at that time, been described as "expansive force". Each type was best suited for use in a particular range of calibers.
Sporting type - This was the fastest burning of the three types of small-arms black powder. The fast, "hot" burning sporting types gave diminishing returns at about 1 grain (volume) per caliber. In effect, 45 grains in a .45 caliber bore. It is about 10% hotter (faster) than the Rifle type b.p. Sporting type powder was usually found as an equal mixture of our present 2f and 3f sizes.
Rifle type - Somewhat slower in burn rate, rifle powder give diminishing returns above 1.45 grains per caliber. In effect, 60 grains in a .45 caliber bore. It has a ballistic strength about 10% greater than the Musket type powders. Rifle powders were also usually an equal mixture of 2f and 3f.
Musket type - The slowest burning of the three, musket powder gives diminishing returns above 1.6 grains per caliber. In effect, 70 grains in a .45 caliber bore."
As far as being glazed...I don't know......
w44wcf
-
Interesting! Without causing too much thread drift, can you point me to that source or scan me a copy?
(Walt Kirst has played a bunch with the .45 Cowboy Special brass to duplicate the 46 Remington Rimfire in a centerfire cartridge)
Hoof Hearted,
About 5 years ago I was visiting the home of a Winchester collector / dealer and spotted an early advertisement for the Henry Rifle. I noted that in addition to the .44 caliber it also mentioned the .46 caliber and, as I recall, a .50 caliber as well.
I though that was very interesting since the only other Henry advertisement I had seen only mentioned .44.
I made it a point to take my camera on my next visit to take a photo but as luck would have it, he had sold it at a gunshow.
Drats! So.....unfortunately, I do not have a copy that I can share.
w44wcf
-
Mako,
Thank you for the kind words. I have had an interest on some of the 19th century cartridges for awhile now and when I could not find pics of sectioned specimens, I decided to make a few myself. I am very happy that I could provide those so that you could make your excellent models which show wonderful details of those, neat, vintage, historic cartridges. ;D
THANK YOU for your wonderful work!
THae best to you, Mako.
w44wcf
-
...........I wonder what date the Henry Flat cartridge (as opposed to the original conical-shaped Henry cartridge) came out? If it came out around1866-1868, it could also be an example of marketing (make the new model 1866 more interesting to customers, because it has "more powerful, new loading of the Henry cartridge" type thing). Remember that this is around the time lots of Henrys, Spencers, and a multitude of other guns were hitting the shelves cheap due to the end of the war. Winchester was probably pulling out all the stops.
MMA10mm,
According to the book "100 Years Of Winchester Cartridge Boxes 1856-1956" by Ray Giles and Dan Schuey.
approximately late 1863 or early 1964.
Perhaps after a couple of years New Haven Arms discovered that a flat pointed bullet has more stopping power than a RN bullet and that is why it was changed.
w44wcf
-
I hate to be the turd in the swimming pool here, but no less an authority than the Mad Monk has stated that the fuliminate of mercury used in 19th century rimfire cases such as the Henry & Spencer gave a boost to the overall velocity of some considerable fps.
I tested the powder from the original Henry cartridge using a magnum pistol primer and it slightly exceeded the claimed 44 Henry velocity (1133 vs 1125 fps). In testing other b.p.'s in 28 gr charges, a standard pistol primer averaged velocities that were 23 f.p.s. slower than the magnum primer. So, by interpolation, the original charge ignited by a standard pistol primer could have been around 1110 f.p.s..
w44wcf
-
Hoof Hearted,
About 5 years ago I was visiting the home of a Winchester collector / dealer and spotted an early advertisement for the Henry Rifle. I noted that in addition to the .44 caliber it also mentioned the .46 caliber and, as I recall, a .50 caliber as well.
I though that was very interesting since the only other Henry advertisement I had seen only mentioned .44...
This is covered completely in the Houze book in the history of Winchester, which is a far better book than the Madis book on the genesis of Winchester. It was a .46 Rimfire made by Winchester for the Swiss, however they rejected the gun. It had an iron frame. This was in 1865-66. The ctg. is pictured on the first Win. paper cartridge advert.
-
Took awhile looking at multiple pics back-and-forth, but I noticed the short-cased RNFP rounds had the most lead sticking out the front of the case. This means that particular combination had either the heaviest bullet (longest with lots of lead out of the case) or the heaviest powder charge (if it's still a 200gr RNFP, there's precious little lead being gripped by the neck, thereby leaving room inside for more powder). Least this is where I'm at at this point...
OK, still been pondering this, and a lightbulb came on. Why would they change to a longer case? And why would only RNFPs be loaded in that style case? Well, looking back at the short-cased RNFPs and my thoughts quoted above, if those RNFPs were only 200 grs and so much of the bullet was outside that short case, there may have been problems with insufficient neck tension. If they didn't want to change the bullet to fix that, the only other way to address the problem would be to lengthen the case! This would also explain why only RNFPs were observed in the longer case (that and the necessity to stay at that exact COAL). They may have even continued producing short-cased cartridges for the conical bullet after the long-case came out, for those customers who wanted to stick with the conical-shaped bullet.
Since the OAL is fixed, and the bullet weights reported seem to be consistent that the conical was the heavier bullet, applying case volume principles would seem to indicate the conical loads were a 216gr bullet & 26gr charge (always in the shorter case), while the RNFPs would be a 200gr bullet & 28gr charge (and may be observed in either length case, though the long-case would be most-common).
-
OK, still been pondering this, and a lightbulb came on. Why would they change to a longer case? And why would only RNFPs be loaded in that style case? Well, looking back at the short-cased RNFPs and my thoughts quoted above, if those RNFPs were only 200 grs and so much of the bullet was outside that short case, there may have been problems with insufficient neck tension. If they didn't want to change the bullet to fix that, the only other way to address the problem would be to lengthen the case! This would also explain why only RNFPs were observed in the longer case (that and the necessity to stay at that exact COAL).....
I think you are correct in your analysis regarding the longer case and the FN bullet. The reason that the RN bullet was not used in the longer case is because the cartridge OAL would be too long to feed through a Henry / 66 rifle.
Here's an interesting pic showing, blank, shot and centerfire 44 Henry's in addition to the standards.
(http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o25/w30wcf/44Henrysbmp.jpg)
w44wcf
-
http://www.google.com/patents?id=rARsAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=120403,&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q&f=false
-
.........I'm guessing the "44 Henry RF Flat" was an attempt to give the Henry/66 designs more power (like superformance ammo today). With the cartridge length restrictions and heel bullet design, the best way to improve the Henry was to add bullet weight. A RNFP puts more lead outside the case than a same-weight & diameter bullet of conical shape (like the original Henry), so that's most-likely my guess of where the 216gr bullet came from.
My next supposition is that Winchester probably started off with a 220 or 225 gr bullet (10-12% increase), but then someone noticed velocity fell off enough that striking energy didn't improve significantly. By judiciously juggling case length, bullet shape and weight,, 2 more grains of powder could be added to retain the same velocity, but now with an 8% heavier bullet, which was still a good improvement for those days.
I wonder what date the Henry Flat cartridge (as opposed to the original conical-shaped Henry cartridge) came out? If it came out around1866-1868, it could also be an example of marketing (make the new model 1866 more interesting to customers, because it has "more powerful, new loading of the Henry cartridge" type thing). Remember that this is around the time lots of Henrys, Spencers, and a multitude of other guns were hitting the shelves cheap due to the end of the war. Winchester was probably pulling out all the stops.
MMA10mm,
Good anology. The 1865 New Haven Arms catalog shows that the 44 Henry cartridge was loaded with a 216 gr pointed bullet and 25 grs. of black powder. I am looking for a specimen of that particular cartridge.
As I found out recently by a cartridge I purchased, there was a heavier version containing a 225 gr. bullet. It looks the same as the flat pointed cartridge in the pic in your post except that mine has no headstamp.
According to a Henry cartridge collector, the pointed bullet weight was changed to 200 grs. around 1866 or 1867 and the 200 gr flat was introduced about the same time.
In reviewing the Winchester catalogs I have, both the Henry 200 gr. Pointed (26 grs bp) and Flat (28 grs bp) cartridges were available up until at least 1916. By 1925 only the 200 gr Flat version remained.
Pic from 1916 Winchester Catalog.
(http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o25/w30wcf/Collector%20Cartridges/44flat.jpg)
w44wcf
-
Pards,
A bit of an update. In answer to the original poster's question:
"How would the .44 rimfire stack up with todays ammo?"
Catalog velocity of the .44 Henry Flat - 200 gr /1,125 f.p.s. Tested 1,133 f.p.s.
The thought recently occurred to me that based on my testing of current .44-40 factory ammunition,
most of the "Cowboy" ammunition falls a bit short.
However, Black Hills, Ultramax & Magtech Sport are ballistically similar. ;D
(http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o25/w30wcf/Collector%20Cartridges/44-40CowboyammoupdatedJul2014.jpg)
For us that reload, 28 grs of FFFG topped with a filler (PSB, etc) under a 200 gr cast bullet will equal original .44 Henry performance. ;D
In addition, 6.0 / Titegroup (my favorite smokeless ) produces 1,130 f.p.s. with a 200 gr cast bullet.
w44wcf
-
...For us that reload, 28 grs of FFFG topped with a filler (PSB, etc) under a 200 gr cast bullet will equal original .44 Henry performance...
I have used that load for years, however instead of a filler I use a 0.430" 1/8" thick Circle Fly card wad over the powder to take up the space. These are much faster for reloading.
http://www.circlefly.com/html/products.html
-
FCK,
Excellent idea. ;D The U.M.C. 28 gr. cartridge would have used a wad between the powder and bullet.
I had thought about getting some of those wads and now I am going to.
w44wcf
-
FWIW, I chono'd that load and out of an Uberti carbine I got 1,050 fps with a SINGLE DIGIT standard deviation!!
-
FWIW, I chono'd that load and out of an Uberti carbine I got 1,050 fps with a SINGLE DIGIT standard deviation!!
Isn't that pretty close to the speed of sound? SINGLE DIGIT SD?
-
Sir Charles,
Yes it is.
700 mph or 1100 fps at sea level.
My best,
Blair
-
I believe that we need more info on the test conditions. In a quick search I found an article explaining chronographs and their use in measuring shotgun velocities. On the LAST page (left hand column) there is a reference to the Chrony recording speed-of-sound measurements if the instrument was set up within SIX Ft of the muzzle.
http://www.claytargettesting.com/study2/Study2.1.pdf
I recall other discussions, but can't pull them outta my elderly brain.
-
Sir Charles,
I believe what could have been causing the issue was with the chronograph 6 feet from the muzzle and using (Lite) lower velocity loads, the escaping powder gasses from the muzzle were traveling faster than the shot itself and thus giving higher readings.
My only experience with chronographs (I have 2 of them) has been with pistols and rifles and none with shotguns. THese days I typically use my Chrony since it is easier to set up than my Ohler and a side by side comparison has indicated that the Chrony is just about as accurate.
For my tests I set the front of the Chrony about 10 feet in front of the muzzle and that has worked very well.
Getting back to .44 Henry Ballistics in the .44-40, 10 or so years ago I removed the powder from an original 200 gr Henry Flat cartridge which weighed 28 grs and was FFFG granulation. I placed the charge in a .44-40 case and compressed it the same amount of compression used in the .44 Henry case.
I used a 155 Federal Magnum pistol primer to ignite the powder which pushed the 200 gr cast bullet to a 1,133 f.p.s. Chrony reading.
The Winchester 1875 Catalog indicated a velocity of the .44 Henry to be 1,125 f.p.s. so 1,133 f.p.s. is pretty darn close. ;D
I decided to use the slightly hotter primer since there was a greater amount of priming compound in thr Henry .44 RF ctg.
Furthert testing of 28 grs by weight of Goex and Kik FFFG powders gave velocities in the same range. I tried both the Fed 155 magnum and CCI 300 std pistol primer and the velocity difference was very small...less than 20 f.p.s.
The difference in velocity between mine and FCK's is that perhaps he was using FFG instead of the FFFG I was using and his rifle has a shorter barrel.
w44wcf
-
I've had some experience w/ the sonic loads too close to the Chronograph. I can't speak for everybody, but my readings were very erratic- easy to see that something was wrong.
-
Come to think of it, my loads then were a hodgepodge of FFg & FFFg for CAS. Some, I even mixed the two granulations to use up old cans.
-
I'm new to reloading and lots of things for CAS, but is i'm so confused reading this. So Mako's bullet will bring give the 44 russian a 28 grain powder charge and it will fire in a rifle chambered for 44spl?
-
I'm too lazy to go back and re-read this whole thread. But. Sorta and Yes. I don't believe you can actually get a full 28Gr powder charge into a 44 Russian case. I could be wrong on that, but I think the internal volume of a modern 44 Russian would not allow that much 3f without severe compression.
Yes. .44 Russian cases can be successfully run in a 44 Special Rifle. You betcha. the real treque is finding a Henry in 44 Special. Scarce.
Real scarce. Should one find a .44 Special Henry, DO NOT tell me where it is unless your really quick with a check book ;D Running .44 Russian in a Henry is a simple matter. You have two choices. First choice, contact "The Smith Shop" in Rhode Island and have Bill English make you up a swell carrier with a spring loaded flipper cartridge stop. Install per the instructions. Second Choice. Take the carrier out of the rifle and lay the round you want to run in the cartridge channel. Move it forward until a straight edge stop it at the front of the cartridge channel. Move it back a couple of thou. Note where the rear of the case rim is. Drill and tap thru the side of the cartridge channel for a 6-32 set screw. Trim the set screw until it just clears the flat part of the Breach Block (bolt). File the set screw to that length and install it in the carrier block with blue LocTite. Cut a clearance channel in the front of the Breach Block for the set screw. PRESTO!!
Runs short cartridge. Exactly the same procedure to run Cowboy 45 Special in a Henry.
Coffinmaker
PS: I forgot to include, the above method ONLY works in a Henry that is chambered in 44 Special or has been re-chambered for 44 Special. Or 45 Colt
-
FCK,
Excellent idea...
Thanks. Here are more in different thicknesses for you to play with:
http://www.trackofthewolf.com/List/Item.aspx/173/2?PageSize=25
Thanks for all the great research on this topic as it is fascinating at the minimum. ;) Years ago, I experimented a lot with 44-40 BP loads using BP 'duplex' loads, e.g., FFFg mixed with FFg and even different brands of such. I "buffered" Swiss FFFg with Elephant FFg to stretch a dollar and it actually worked very well. The Elephant FFg served to "mute" the Swiss FFFg somewhat, yet still retained most of its moist burning properties.
-
Performance wise for playing the game why not a current 45 schofield? Run it in a 45 colt rifle and should be as close as anything currently available to duplicate the performance of the 44 Henry.
The 28 grain powder charge is right for the Schofield brass and a .452 200 grain bullet is the correct weight and closer in diameter to the original 44 Henry than a 44 Russian.
I believe the 44 Henry was somewhere around a .446 bullet, not a .430.
-
Tripped across this thread, and thought it was worth reviving from the dead.
Cliff, I did just that. I use a .45 Schofield in my 1860 Henry and 1872 Open tops to exactly duplicate the .44 Henry Flat round. When I did black powder, I used 27 grns FFG or 28 grains FFFG, with a 200 grain bullet. Now I use 7 grains of Trail Boss and get about 1100+ from my Henry. Also, the .452" diameter bullet in my Schofield load is only .01" larger than the .442"-.444" original Henry rounds I checked. The overall length of the 200 grain Schofield is just 1/10" longer than the original .44 Henry Flat round.
(http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg134/imarangemaster/44_Henry1_zpsvogcrgm1.jpg) (http://s247.photobucket.com/user/imarangemaster/media/44_Henry1_zpsvogcrgm1.jpg.html)
-
Smokeless in a Henry?
Blasphemy :)
hang him, hang him high.
-
I'm too lazy to go back and re-read this whole thread. But. Sorta and Yes. I don't believe you can actually get a full 28Gr powder charge into a 44 Russian case. I could be wrong on that, but I think the internal volume of a modern 44 Russian would not allow that much 3f without severe compression.
I get approximately 30 in my .44 Colt loads but I tap them to make em settle then top them off. This is measured by volume, not by weight. I will toss a few onto the scale to see what the load out is.
-
My beauties.... ;D
(http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg134/imarangemaster/OT4_zpsdig78cvq.jpeg) (http://s247.photobucket.com/user/imarangemaster/media/OT4_zpsdig78cvq.jpeg.html)
-
I know, I know... I used to shoot only "holy black," or subs. Problem is, I am no longer set up to load 12 ga. BP loads, and don't have the time, either. I am busier than a one legged man in a butt kicking contest selling real estate, and am lucky to shoot one match a month. Also, Trail Boss is so dang easy, and even smokes quite a bit. I'm old and lazy, I guess.
-
I know, I know... I used to shoot only "holy black," or subs. Problem is, I am no longer set up to load 12 ga. BP loads, and don't have the time, either. I am busier than a one legged man in a butt kicking contest selling real estate, and am lucky to shoot one match a month. Also, Trail Boss is so dang easy, and even smokes quite a bit. I'm old and lazy, I guess.
It's all good as long as you're having fun.
-
hang him, hang him high.
And with a short rope. ;D
-
Y'all are aware I hope, In lots of circles, Necromancy, participation in Necromancy, and blow up dolls are considered illegal?? Often, especially when used in an HOV lane, it'll get ya points on yer license.
The walking dead are suppose to stay ..... dead!! So there.
Coffin (to the dead) maker
-
Fox Creek Kid
what exactly is the title of this book ? Amazon did not have a Kopec book list
Thanks for your help.
This is all covered in the Colt Peacemaker "Bible", the Kopec book. Interestingly, what we now know as the Colt '72 Open Top bested the Colt SAA in military tests but the military was sold on a solid frame revolver at this time.
-
Take a look here for more info: http://johnakopec.com/ (http://johnakopec.com/), or more specifically here: http://johnakopec.com/index.php?page=astudyofthecoltsingleactionarmyrevolver (http://johnakopec.com/index.php?page=astudyofthecoltsingleactionarmyrevolver)
Hopefully that helps.
CC Griff
-
I'm reviving this old thread yet again ;D
This is such a good discussion of the early 44 cartridges and ballistics. I stumbled on it while researching my current project. An 1870s vintage #2 Remington rolling block chambered in 44 rimfire. Careful chamber measurements indicate that the centerfire equivalent is nearly identical to 44 S&W American.
I swapped in a centerfire breech block and made cases from both 303 Savage and 41 magnum. I bought a box of 44 S&W American heel bullets from BACO to start. I determined the best case length to be .965". This works with the BACO bullet and a Lyman 427098 bullet. The latter is the classic 44-40 bullet. I simply put them in the lathe and turn a .412" heel on them.
This cartridge is a bit anemic compared to the others discussed here. But with Swiss 1.5, I'm getting over 1000fps out of this rifle.
It's a fun project. I've really enjoyed reading this thread.
-
Good work! How's it shoot?
-
ndnchf, what a delightful little rifle. Do you put lube in those grease grooves? If not how is the bullet lubricated...wads?
Inquiring minds would like to know. (smile)
Dave
-
Delightful is an excellent description. I have three #2 rolling blocks and love shooting them all. For smokeless lube, I found a recipe from a 1943 Amerucan Rifleman magazine that said it was a factory heel bullet lube. I made some up, then dipped the nose in it up to the case mouth. It's a fairly hard, non-sticky lube. For black powder. I use a home brewed lube in the outside groove.
Today was my second trip to the range with this rifle. My goal was to see if the Ideal 427098 bullets that I lathe cut heels on would work. I'm pleased to say they did.
The rifle's groove diameter is .430", the bullets were the same size. Usually I prefer bullets .001- .0015" over groove size. But this is what I had on hand. They were cast of 40-1 alloy, which helps.
They drilled nice straight holes at 50 yds, so I'm very happy with that. The biggest problem is my aging eyes and the original barrel sights. It really seemed to like the Old Eynsford 3F and Unique loads. It grouped well despite the errant shots that are my fault. It does show good potential. I'll make more 427098 here bullets :-)
-
Very nice shooting with original sights and old eyes. For me shooting at 50 yds i have use a tang sight if i want to have a chance to hit where i'm aiming.
-
I have tang sights on my other two #2 rolling blocks and they really help. But they are later versions in 32-20 and 32 extra long rimfire (converted to centerfire so it now shoots 32 Ballard Extra Long). This 44 cal #2 is an early version made before tang sights were popular. It is not drilled/tapped for one. As much as I'd like to have one, I'm not going to drill it.
BTW, the original factory heel bullet lube I made up worked fine. I was a little concerned that the lube covered bullet would be difficult to chamber. But it wasn't a problem. The bore cleaned easily afterwards. There was no leading.
Today I turned heels on 70 more 427098 bullets and tumble lubed them with diluted LLA. I'll try these out with my light smokeless loads.
-
I was able to collect more chronograph data a couple days ago. I was particularly interested in seeing what the 3F Old Eynsford would do. Thus old E load is about as close as I can get to the original 44 rimfire cartridge. All these were loaded with a 40-1 Lyman 427098 bullet with the last band turned down to a .412" heel. They weigh 208gr. Shortened .41 Magnum brass was used.
6.0gr Unique, CCI LP primer = avg 973fps
12.5gr by weight Blackhorn 209, CCI LPM primer = avg 847fps
22.0gr by weight Old Eynsford 3F. CCI LP primer = avg 1092fps.
I should note that I didnt yet have the collet crimp die from Bernie Rowles. But it arrived yesterday and works great.
Accuracy has been very good. The Old E load sounded very nice. It's not quite at the 44-40 level. But it's quite respectable.
In case you can't tell, I'm really enjoying this rifle.
-
This morning I loaded more 44 centerfire for my #2 rolling block. I'm trying to replicate the original al 44 rimfire cartridge as close as possible. I don't know for sure how much powder the original rimfire cartridge held, but I suspect it was close to 25gr. The most I can get in the centerfire cases is 23gr., and that takes some work. Thats what I wanted to show.
The first image shows 23gr of Old Eynsford 3F just poured into the case from the scale. It starts to overflow the case. No way a bullet can be seated. The second image shows the same exact charge slowly poured through a 24" drop tube. The third image shows that same 23gr, drop tubed charge after being compressed about .075" using a compression die.
After compressing the powder, there is now about .155" between the case mouth and powder. The bullet's heel is .150". This makes a perfectly fitted powder column to the bullet.
Lastly, is the cartridge with the bullet seated and crimped using Bernie Rowles special collet crimp die. This is about as close as I can get to the original cartridge from 140 years ago. I'm hoping the increase from 22 to 23gr and the crimp will bring average velocity over the 1100 fps mark.
-
I always thought the original .44 henry case held 28grs of powder, but i can see from your pics that looks impossible. Are you using a over shot over your charge?
-
While very similar to the 44 Henry, this is a 44 rimfire/centerfire for a Remington rolling block. The case length is .965". The old thin, folded head rimfire cases just held more powder. I'm going by powder weight. Way back then they may have gone by bulk measurement - not sure.
-
Bullet dip lubed in the old factory heel bullet lube I made up. Ready for the range later this week.
-
Joe,
I recall reading about that. Young girl and her brother out gathering and ended up in a tree with the bear coming after them? Do you have the article or a site to read it? I thought it was a Single shot rifle and she used 22 shorts. If I remember it correctly she shot it 6 or 8 times and after it died the kids went back to camp and only mentioned the incident after a couple of days. Wish I could find my copy of the thing. If you can help out, it would be appreciated.
As for the 44 Henry, I believe it about equals the 45 Cowboy Special when both use black powder. When I get the time, I'll check my books.
Read that story in Ole's Big Game Steakhouse in Paxton Nebraska - I thought the Grizzly skin was there on the wall too, but could have been a replica - story said she took him out with the first shot but then followed up just in case - makes sense - if ya didnt get him with the first 22 short he'd et ya before ya got the second .
The food was good but incredible display of game trophys from all over the world - friends took me there on a trip.
-
Howdy Again
One thing about Browning's designs like the '92 and the '86 that some folks don't realize is that in addition to being lighter and stronger than their predecessor the '73, they were also less expensive to produce. You got a stronger, lighter gun for less money. At least they cost less to build, I dunno if the savings were passed on to the buying public.
Driftwood
Ya have me puzzled here, how come less expensive to produce ?
I am an amateur (backyard - hobby) machinist, I reckon given enough time I could scratch build a toggle action gun that would work. I converted a model 92 from 32/20 to 38/40 a couple years ago so I am intimate with the innards of one of those - do I think I could build one ? no way mate!
Have made a lot of stuff over the years but I have no experience with factory production so just looking at the complexity of machining and the tolerances required for proper function both of which to my mind are heavily on the side of the simpler toggle guns --enlighten me please?
-
I thought I'd come and share these little snippets from Yellowstone Kellys book, I know some stuff gets changed and whatnot but I believe that he used his rifles chambered in .44 Henry to a great extent. Now would I be man enough too do what he did? probably not but never know.
"There were buffaloes feeding within half a mile and I took my rifle and started afoot to get some meat. I approached to within seventy-five yards of a bunch of cows that stood unafraid gazing at me. There was some choice of meat here, for there were many two- or three- year-old heifers and young bulls. Though it seemed doubtful that they would stay for nearer approach I walked along for ten or fifteen yards, for I was mindful that I carried a .44 Henry and the little flat-nosed bullet did not always stop a bull at seventy-five yards. Selecting a two-year-old heifer I let drive and she did not go many yards before falling inert on the ground."
"Meanwhile, the buffaloes were pressing along so close that we were in danger of being run over. At this juncture my partner threw a stick of wood, which hit an old bull on the back. The animal paid no attention to this, and thinking his hide would make a cover for us on a cold night I rose up and plugged him in the center of the mass of hair that hung over his eyes. I had been told that a .44 caliber Henry bullet would not penetrate the bone through this mass of hair and sand, but he dropped and there was great tumult as the herd parted right and left, slipping, sliding, and falling over each other in their excitement. Skinning him was no fun, but at night the heavy green hide stretched over the canvas that covered our bed kept us snug and warm."
Like I said, don't think I'd be man enough. Probably get the whole herd chasing me down till i was jelly on the ground.
-
I thought I'd come and share these little snippets from Yellowstone Kellys book, I know some stuff gets changed and whatnot but I believe that he used his rifles chambered in .44 Henry to a great extent. Now would I be man enough too do what he did? probably not but never know.
"There were buffaloes feeding within half a mile and I took my rifle and started afoot to get some meat. I approached to within seventy-five yards of a bunch of cows that stood unafraid gazing at me. There was some choice of meat here, for there were many two- or three- year-old heifers and young bulls. Though it seemed doubtful that they would stay for nearer approach I walked along for ten or fifteen yards, for I was mindful that I carried a .44 Henry and the little flat-nosed bullet did not always stop a bull at seventy-five yards. Selecting a two-year-old heifer I let drive and she did not go many yards before falling inert on the ground."
"Meanwhile, the buffaloes were pressing along so close that we were in danger of being run over. At this juncture my partner threw a stick of wood, which hit an old bull on the back. The animal paid no attention to this, and thinking his hide would make a cover for us on a cold night I rose up and plugged him in the center of the mass of hair that hung over his eyes. I had been told that a .44 caliber Henry bullet would not penetrate the bone through this mass of hair and sand, but he dropped and there was great tumult as the herd parted right and left, slipping, sliding, and falling over each other in their excitement. Skinning him was no fun, but at night the heavy green hide stretched over the canvas that covered our bed kept us snug and warm."
Like I said, don't think I'd be man enough. Probably get the whole herd chasing me down till i was jelly on the ground.
Greetings My Good Herr Shootist
Even if I was crazy enough willing to take the shot I dont think my stomach could handle sleeping under a green hide....
-
Same Professor, but what i didn't add said that it was during a blizzard in Montana, desperation makes a man do things he never thought of. but like you, i probably wouldn't sleep under a green hide.
-
Very likely they smelled just like that hide so why would it bother them?
Billy
-
Very true
-
to the original question .......the 44 henry rimfire would stack up just fine - becuz the 44/40 (commercial ammo) has been detuned, for at least the last 60 years, by about 150 FPS from the original blackpowder loadings.
-
Just to follow up on my #2 rolling block 44 rimfire to centerfire rifle. The 23gr charge of old eynsford 3F and heel cut 208gr Lyman 427098 bullet yielded an average 1124fps. I'd say thats pretty respectable and stacks up well.
-
Just to follow up on my #2 rolling block 44 rimfire to centerfire rifle. The 23gr charge of old eynsford 3F and heel cut 208gr Lyman 427098 bullet yielded an average 1124fps. I'd say thats pretty respectable and stacks up well.
Its interesting - the economy of lower velocity charges in smaller(ish) cases .....................add half again to your load (34grains instead of 23) loaded into a 44/40 case would net you very little more velocity .....................
I always wondered whether an increase in priming compound was a factor in the 44 henry RF velocity ???
-
Its interesting - the economy of lower velocity charges in smaller(ish) cases .....................add half again to your load (34grains instead of 23) loaded into a 44/40 case would net you very little more velocity .....................
I always wondered whether an increase in priming compound was a factor in the 44 henry RF velocity ???
Yes, I wondered that too. My load was with CCI LP primers. Maybe magum primers would add a little more umph.
-
Just to follow up on my #2 rolling block 44 rimfire to centerfire rifle. The 23gr charge of old eynsford 3F and heel cut 208gr Lyman 427098 bullet yielded an average 1124fps. I'd say thats pretty respectable and stacks up well.
That's a good bit of power from a # 2 RB , pretty efficient cartridge . ,,,DT
-
Continuing the. 44 rimfire saga...
I'm dredging up this old thread again because I've been making .44 long rimfire cases for an early Ballard. I convert .44-40 brass to rimfire, then load with 27.0gr of Old Eynsford 2F under a 218gr heel bullet. Here is a short video of my first range trip with it. It's a hoot to shoot!
https://youtu.be/aq3CqFQd36E
-
Nice shooting and a very fine old rifle. Cool idea with making your centerfire ammo into rimfire ammo.
-
Dredging up this thread yet again. I went to the range a few days ago to shoot both the .44 rimfire Ballard rifle and the .44 rimfire converted to centerfire Remington rolling block. I made a short video of the fun.
https://youtu.be/sEQ2c-lQGCY
-
Greetings, Ndnchf!
I noticed that the shorter Remington .44CF produced significantly less smoke, and seemed to have a "stouter" muzzle blast; better ignition?
M.T.M.
11-06-22
-
Greetings, Ndnchf!
I noticed that the shorter Remington .44CF produced significantly less smoke, and seemed to have a "stouter" muzzle blast; better ignition?
M.T.M.
11-06-22
Good observation.
In consideration of the Ballard's cast iron receiver, I load its cartrudges light, with some filler and Blackhorn 209. The Remington cartridges were loaded with Reloader 7 - thus less smoke, but more bark.
-
For your Ballard loads how hard is it to remove the .22 casing from the brass or are they just set in there?
-
For your Ballard loads how hard is it to remove the .22 casing from the brass or are they just set in there?
Unlike power tool blanks, acorn blanks tap out pretty easy. They are a .001" - .002" interference fit. I made a little decapping stand and punch. I doesn't take much longer or more effort than decapping centerfire primers.