.44 mag in a .44-40

[possom813]

I'm not familiar with the .44-40 platform. That being said, I've been offered a Winchester 1892 in .44-40 for trade.

When the fellow sent the offer, he stated it was a .44 mag, although the photos clearly show .44wcf.

I've asked if he's fired it, and he guarantees it shoots. I've posed another question on what ammo he's been shooting in it.

Will a .44 magnum cartridge even fit in a .44-40 chamber? From what little I do know about the .44-40, I thought it had a small shoulder?

 

[jamesjames]

For Heavens sake, no!

 

[MEHavey]

The 44Mag will [likely not] fit in a 44-40 chamber. While the 44-40 has
quite a bit larger diameter case at the bottom, the 44Mag case mouth is
quite a bit larger. And I'm not real sanguine at firing an unsupported
44Mag pressure case -- so unsupported -- even if the neck is jam-fit
into the chamber.

In fact jam-fit causes problems all its own (big time)

Something is wrong w/ the seller.

 

[Tommygunn]

I have a Uberti made Winchester 1873 in .44-40, and when I later purchased a Browning 1892 in .44 magnum I became concerned about interchanging the two somewhat similar rounds----similar in size, VERY DIFFERENT IN POWER!!!!
Neither cartridge will fit in the other breach, this I found out by actually trying both in the opposing gun---BUT I NEVER CLOSED THE BOLT WITH THE WRONG ROUND EVEN PARTIALLY INSERTED.

Nevertheless you do not want to be mixing things up.
The 1892 itself is strong enough for the .44 magnum........and back when the 44MAGNUM was developed, some of those '92 Winchesters were rebored for the magnum round.

I suggest you have the rifle in question slugged to assure you what it actually should be fed. Possibly it was rebored and the markings left unchanged.
I would not fire it until I knew what was going on with it!

 

[MEHavey]

TommyGun is correct. Although the 44 bullets are the same size, the mouth diameters of the different cartridges are not.
The 44 Mag mics out at 0.449". But because of much thinner neck brass, the 44-40 mics at 0.441"

The (my) `73 in 44-40 will not chamber the neck portion of the 44Mag. (Will the `92 ?)


.

 

[nebraska_farmer]

Sounds like a bad idea, I would pass.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

I've posed another question on what ammo he's been shooting in it.

I'm interested in what his response will be to this question.

Tommygun may be on to something and it is a re-bore. You'd think that would be discolsed though.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

TommyGun is correct. Although the 44 bullets are the same size, the mouth diameters of the different cartridges are not.
The 44 Mag mics out at 0.449". But because of much thinner neck brass, the 44-40 mics at 0.441"

The (my) `73 in 44-40 will not chamber the neck portion of the 44Mag. (Will the `92 ?)


.

Actually original 44wcf used .427 bullets not the .429 that associated with the 44 mag. Not until recent years have the Italians been putting .429 barrels on the 44-40 guns. Even then occasionally some guns with .429 bores will not chamber a round loaded with .429 bullets depending on how tight the chamber is.

I load a lot of 44wcf and have different rounds for various guns. Some loaded with .427 bullets (original Winchesters and early Italian replicas) and some of the newer replicas I use .429 bullets.

To answer the original poster the 44wcf and 44mag is a totally different round. Typically the 44 mag will not chamber and will hang up in the neck area of a 44-40 chamber. That's not to say someone couldn't force one into a 44-40 with a large chamber. I would think the outcome would be ugly if that happened.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

Some of the above information is incorrect/misleading. You can't just rebore the chamber of a 44-40 and make a 44 mag. The 44-40 is already larger than the 44mag at the base.

 

[the Real Alpo]

Back in the long-ago time, when the new "hot" cartridges came out, 32/20 92s were converted to 357, and 44/40 92s were converted to 44 magnum.

Was this a good plan? Probably not. But like shaving the back of a Webley, to "convert" it to 45 ACP, or running a 38 special reamer into a Victory S&W chambered in 38/200, it was done.

So maybe what this is, is an original 92 44/40 that was converted way back when, and the barrel marking was never changed.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

Back in the long-ago time, when the new "hot" cartridges came out, 32/20 92s were converted to 357, and 44/40 92s were converted to 44 magnum.

Was this a good plan? Probably not. But like shaving the back of a Webley, to "convert" it to 45 ACP, or running a 38 special reamer into a Victory S&W chambered in 38/200, it was done.

So maybe what this is, is an original 92 44/40 that was converted way back when, and the barrel marking was never changed.

Explain how they could have converted it from 44-40 to 44 mag without changing the barrel marking when they would have changed the barrel itself?

Every one I've seen converted was a rebarrel.

As I said before the 44-40 is already too large at the base to ream and make a 44 mag. Plus the original 44-40's were a smaller bore diameter than 44 mag.

 

[The Big D]

Explain how they could have converted it from 44-40 to 44 mag without changing the barrel marking when they would have changed the barrel itself?

I don't think the barrel always got changed. If you ran a .44mag reamer into a .44-40 chamber, I bet the resulting hybrid would chamber and fire at least .44 mag and maybe both. Accuracy might leave something to be desired, and the .44 mag brass might bulge at the base, but with the cartridge headspacing on the rim and the .44-40 chamber being small enough up front to more or less center the .44mag, I can't see how it doesn't fire.

 

[joem1945]

Sounds like a gun to pass on. Not to risk body parts that don't grow back.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

I don't think the barrel always got changed. If you ran a .44mag reamer into a .44-40 chamber, I bet the resulting hybrid would chamber and fire at least .44 mag and maybe both. Accuracy might leave something to be desired, and the .44 mag brass might bulge at the base, but with the cartridge headspacing on the rim and the .44-40 chamber being small enough up front to more or less center the .44mag, I can't see how it doesn't fire.

Are you familiar with the dimensions of the 44-40 compared to the 44mag? Plus did you not read my post or understand that the bore was different for a 44wcf?

I've seen many times and this thread is an example where people think they are the same base cartridge but they are way different. 44wcf uses a .427 bullet, not until recent years did 44wcf guns start being barreled with a .429 bore. The bore was different, the base of the chamber is already .014 larger than a 44mag chamber, it would made no sense to even try and make an acceptable conversion by just reaming a 44-40. I've seen the question asked a thousand times.

You say you think, well I have never heard or seen one converted that the barrel was not changed. Someone somewhere has probably done it but I can't imagine a reputable and knowledgeable gunsmith doing it.

 

[MEHavey]

Even if the 44-40 chamber/neck area were bored out to accommodate the larger bullet/neck-thickness
of the 44Mag, it would still leave the latter half of the 44Mag's case largely unsupported.
(No way to add metal back in)

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

Yep, it would probably shoot, inaccurately with a lot of case bulge going on, or splitting and that's all provided it would withstand the 44 mag pressures

 

[Sunray]

"....44 magnum cartridge even fit in a .44-40 chamber..." Yep. Except for the rim diameter(.514" vs .525") the Mag case is a tick smaller. However, the 40 has nowhere near as much pressure. A Max Trail Boss cast 200 grain handgun load(Hodgdon uses CUP for one PSI for the other in rifle. No way of comparing) for the Mag runs at 20,000 PSI. 11,900 PSI for the 40. Firing a Mag out of a 40 may not be enough to blow the rifle, but it'd do some kind of damage.
And like Cowhide Cliff says, they use different bullet diameters.

 

[CraigC]

Firing the smaller .44Mag in a .44-40 would probably not result in a high pressure situation but right the opposite. If the rifle is new enough to have been proofed for smokeless powder, then strength would not be an issue. If it comes from the blackpowder era, I would be very leery.

Either way, I would be very certain what I was getting into before purchasing.

 

[justin22885]

unless you REALLY want something in an original caliber, just buy a 44 mag lever action and load it with 44 specials, you'll get the same performance out of a much less expensive, easier to find, more popular cartridge

 

[Jim Watson]

As said, it should not be possible to shoot .44 Magnum in a .44-40 and would be dangerous if you could cram one in or ream the chamber to an odd mongrel shape.
It is not even wise to shoot hot .44 Magnum loads in a rebarrelled .44-40. The barrel shank is small and the receiver ring is thin for those pressures. You could bulge the barrel with just a little too heavy load that a modern gun would handle.

But I think C. Cliff is a little too dogmatic about those barrel specs.
Ken Waters slugged a number of barrels and found:

Real Winchester 1892 = .428"
Real Winchester 1873 = .429"
Euroarms repro 1873 = .4265"
Colt New Service = .4275"

Load for what you have, not what somebody says you should have.
My relined 1892 is .428" and I would shoot .429" bullets in it if all my brass were thin Winchesters. But I have enough that I get by with .428" when I can find them, otherwise a brand listed at .427" but miking .4275".

 

[BCRider]

This thread got me interested enough to try it for myself on my Uberti 1866. As expected the ammo will go partially into the chamber but stops where the case mouth lip meets the shoulder reduction in the chamber. The rim is sitting up a good 3/16" from being seated when that occurs.

On an 1866 and 1873 there is no recess for the rim to seat down into. The face of the bolt is flat other than for the extractor on top and the little wedge foot at the bottom of the bolt that jams into a sloped recess on the lower edge of the barrel face. So any size difference in the rims won't be enough to prevent the round from being inserted. It relies strictly on the interference of the case where it tries to jam into the chamber past the shoulder.

The problem in this case is that with the leverage offered on an 1892 action I can see where someone might assume that the extra effort needed to "swage fit" a .44 Mag past the shoulder and force a fit might not be out of the question. But the resulting bulged brass SHOULD be a sign to all but the most ignorant out there.

It'll be interesting to learn more about how this plays out when the reply about which ammo was used comes in. Also if it's a modern Miroku made gun with modern metals chances are good that one could just shrug off a few rounds of the wrong ammo and just feed it the proper .44-40 from hence on. But if it's an old late 1800's or early 1900's production gun I'm not sure I'd want to buy it if it had seen more than one or two Magnums put through it. We just don't know what this present owner or the one before them may have done and passed on when selling it.

 

[Missionary]

Greetings
Have owned numerous Winchester model 1892 rifles and carbines in 44 WCF. That is the real name for 44-40. Earliest is a early 2nd year (7xxx) out to one made in 1923. One has a chamber (1907) that is "fat enough" to easily chamber a 44 Magnum. That chamber will take a .435+ bullet.
Older Winchester chambers were cut with tooling that was made oversize even for those years so as the tooling wore it would still be within Winchester specs. New tools cut fat chambers. Old tools due to wear cut much smaller chambers.
The model 1892 as designed by Mr. John Browning is still one of the strongest lever action designs. If a 1892 action fails it is always at the barrel ring which is the weakest part. Even today 125 years into history the model 1892 is chambered for cartridges that far surpass the 44 mag in power. 480 Ruger and 454 Casull being just two. There is no issue if a model 1892 could withstand44 mag pressure.
But as well noted by previous posters is the 44 magnum case diameter difference. The case will rupture on firing. The shooter may receive a face full of hot gas or it may go down into the receiver out the trigger guard. Far worse would be the magazine tube receiving the blast and detonating the following rounds. That is one good reason to be sure the rifle chamber is designed to receive the cartridge you desire to shoot.
So just read the barrel top or left side (model 1892) to ascertain the proper caliber that should be loaded. Do a chamber cast. Take it to a gunsmith to be verified.
But do realize, Winchester chambered no Model 1892 44 Magnum rifles or carbines. Rebarreled yes but properly marked them. Just because a firearm will chamber a cartridge does not mean it is safe.
Mike in Peru

 

[Carl N. Brown]

As far as I am concerned, all .44-40 and .44 Mag have in common is they are rimmed cartridges and take large pistol primers.

Cartridge         .44-40       .44 Magnum
Case type        tapered       straight  
Bullet diameter   .427 in       .429 in  
Neck diameter     .443 in       .457 in  
Shoulder diameter .457 in       .457 in  
Base diameter     .471 in       .457 in  
Rim diameter      .525 in       .514 in  
Case length      1.310 in      1.285 in 
Overall length   1.59  in      1.61  in

I think 1892 converted to .44 Magnum would be rebarreled, not just chamber reamed.

Caveat Emptor: Maybe the seller saw ".44wcf" and thinks that means ".44mag" or maybe he thinks he can sell a ".44mag" but not a .44-40.

 

[The Big D]

As far as I am concerned, all .44-40 and .44 Mag have in common is they are rimmed cartridges and take large pistol primers.

Cartridge         .44-40       .44 Magnum
Case type        tapered       straight  
Bullet diameter   .427 in       .429 in  
Neck diameter     .443 in       .457 in  
Shoulder diameter .457 in       .457 in  
Base diameter     .471 in       .457 in  
Rim diameter      .525 in       .514 in  
Case length      1.310 in      1.285 in 
Overall length   1.59  in      1.61  in

I think 1892 converted to .44 Magnum would be rebarreled, not just chamber reamed.

And why do you think that? It might be the "right" thing to do, but it's pretty clear that if you chamber reamed it, .44 mag would chamber and fire. Both headspace on the rim and the .44 mag would roughly center in the "hybrid" chamber since the front end of the chamber would be .44 mag dimensions. So the primer and firing pin would line up, which is all it takes to get it to fire. Yes, there would be some case stretch at the base, but not nearly enough to rupture most cases. And the difference between a .427/8 and .429 bore diameter isn't going to stop the show. Quite likely the resulting gun, if it was strong enough not to blow up, would operate with no apparent problems although I wouldn't expect much for accuracy.

I would not buy such a gun, but I would not be at all surprised to find the gun existed.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

Bottom line is if the rifle would load and fire a 44mag then it is not worth having because it has been altered incorrectly.

A 44 Mag will not chamber in a 44wcf and vice versa. I suppose some knucklehead may be able to force a 44 mag with a soft lead bullet into a 44-40 chamber but anybody with any sense would know something is way wrong.