44-40 load for 1890's Winchester 73

[Bob Winchester]

Got some ammo. Is a 240 grain JHP bullet with 4.o grains of red dot. Is it ok to shoot in this old gal?
Thanks,

[the telegraphist]

If it was my old gal, I would not use it, would stick to a 200g lead RNFP backed by a charge of 13 to 13.5g of Alliant 2400 which would closely duplicate the old blackpowder loading in pressure and velocity. Fast smokeless powders I would not recommend in an original. Unique would probably be the fastest smokeless I would contemplate using in an original, even then would not go above 8g with a 200g RNFP. Others may differ in their opinion.

[M. M. Wright]

Will the 240 grainer feed through it? 44-40 is usually loaded with 200 grain RNFP and has to be just the right length or it won't feed in the 73. Red Dot is a very "quick" powder and I would be hesitant about it in an old 73 that should be shot with black powder. My wife shoots 5.5 grains of WW 231 and the 200 RNFP in her Uberti 73 for SASS but I use a case full of ffg.

[KirkD]

The other two posters above have raised good points ..... will it feed and what about using a slower powder. I use the same load that the telegraphist uses. 2400 tends to mimic the original blackpowder pressure curves for the same bullet. Faster powders can give a higher pressure spike unless a lower velocity is used. In your case, a 240 grain jacketed bullet is going to raise the pressures due to a 20% increase in inertia from the extra 40 grains, not to mention the greater resistance of the jacketed bullet in starting down the bore, versus soft lead. Original 44-40 bullets were pure lead, according to my copy of an 1896 Winchester catalogue. Another thing, that 240 grain bullet will have to be set deeper to feed properly, but setting it deeper is going to reduce the case volume during ignition, raising the pressure spike. I would not use that bullet in an original '73, especially with a fast powder.

[1886]

Many reasons to avoid jacketed slugs. 1886.

[w30wcf]

Bob,
First I would say that if they are someone else's reloads, I would not shoot them. If there was by chance a double charge in one of those cartridges, that would definitely not be a good thing.

Second, based on an Alliant Powder guide, that loading is plenty safe in a '73.
They show 4.7/Red Dot/800 fps / 12,300CUP under a 240 gr lead bullet.
The jacketed bullet would raise pressures a bit but the .7 gr reduction would more than compensate.

There is a possibility that accuracy may not be too good with the heavier than normal bullet at lower velocity.

w30wcf

[Mike D.]

What is the diameter of the 240 grain JHP? My guess is that it is .429 and designed for the .44 mag. and not the .44 W.C.F. .44 W.C.F. bullets are nominally .427, the correct size for the .44-40. While the Red Dot load may well be safe enough, I would steer clear of it for use in a 1890s Model '73. Occasional use of jacketed bullets of the correct size will not harm your gun, but for the majority of shooting I would stick with lead. My favorite powder for use in 1873 rifles and Col SA revolvers is Unique. A max of 8.5 grains is recommended. I shoot 8 grains in both the '73 carbine and SAs. These guns have been fired countless times with this load and have yet to mechanical issues from it's use.

[Lefty Dude]

The barrel must be slugged, prior to shooting any jacketed bullets. The factory Remington 44-40 jacketed bullets are .426", the Winchester's are .425". I would not use a 240 gr. bullet.

That barrel can be from .425" to .432".

It was meant to shoot BP, if Smokless is necessary I would choose Unique.

[Mike D.]

About the time that 1873 was made smokeless powder came on the scene and most manufacturers of cartridges offered the new fangled "white" powder in most calibers. Smokeless loads of the day, even those marked High Velocity, were loaded to BP pressures and were safe to use in all rifles of the day. While the powder was "non-corrosive" the priming compound was not, and as a result many fine guns were damaged by corrosive priming because they were improperly cleaned after the use of smokeless.

I do not use BP in any of my Winchester and Colt firearms, regardless of when they were manufactured. Appropriate smokeless powder loads are safe and offer far fewer problems than BP loads do. The "boom" and resultant cloud of smoke don't appeal to me. Many shooters like the challenges of BP, but I have no use for it.

[Bob Winchester]

Sorry, I didn’t mean to leave this conversation flat but I was out of town for a few days. I only have 7 of the 240gr jhp with 4.0 grain of red dot. They were loaded for WCF so I can assume they would be the .427 size.
However now I have bought Magtech Technologically Advanced Cowboy action loads. They are 225gr Lflat lead. Muzzle Velocity is 761 fps with 289 Ft.Lb. I don’t know what Magtech loaded them with. Says on the box they are loaded to the written SASS specifications.

Can I fire these in the old rifle?


Thanks again,

[Mike D.]

Yes, absolutely. Those are very light loads, bordering on puny. I expect that the bullets will be easily seen as they s-l-o-w-l-y float to the target, which had better be close.

[Sixgun]

Some people should leave their 1873's on the wall and just look at them.! E-Gads, I'm starting to sound like Terry.

Mr Bobby--get some lead slugs and push 'em out with 6 gr. of Bullseye or 7.5 of Unique. This is America and lead slugs are about everywhere. .429's will do just fine. I use .431's out of a 1883 produced 1873. -----------------------Sixgun

[Bob Winchester]

I just wanna have fun and shoot my gun! And I can't afford to have a rifle blow up in face......cause it already looks......well..... like I had a rifle blow up in my face!!!!


What do you all think of Trail Boss powder for reloading? Looks like it can be used for 44-40, 32-20 and 30-30 and 32-30. So I was thinking I could use it when I start to reload because this.

[w30wcf]

Bob,
I have found that TrailBoss works very well for the reduced velocity Cowboy loadings but it will not produce original cartridge ballistics without pressures being over SAMMI MAP.

About the time that 1873 was made smokeless powder came on the scene and most manufacturers of cartridges offered the new fangled "white" powder in most calibers. Smokeless loads of the day, even those marked High Velocity, were loaded to BP pressures and were safe to use in all rifles of the day. While the powder was "non-corrosive" the priming compound was not, and as a result many fine guns were damaged by corrosive priming because they were improperly cleaned after the use of smokeless.........

Mike,
Actually......the High Velocity loadings developed 50% more pressure (22,000 vs 15,000) and were not to be used in 1873 Winchesters (32WCF, 38WCF, and 44WCF). Interestingly, Winchester even headstamped their cartridges with W.H.V. '92 to designate that they were only to be used in '92 Winchester or similar strength rifles.

Corrosive priming came along about 20 years after the "white powder" was introduced and were around for about 15 years. Prior to that , mercuric priming was used and although not injurious to rifle bores, it was to brass.

w30wcf

[Mike D.]

No, John, not THOSE HV loads. I'm talking about the early HV, low pressure loads that were developed in the early 1900s. I have boxes for the 1886 that state that the pressure is similar to the standard loads. One of my classic screw ups was firing a 1940s vintage HV .44-40 load in one of my 1st gen SAs. Thankfully, the gun suffered no ill effects and is still working fine.

[jd45]

Bob Winchester,..........NOT!!! Be safe, & follow these guys knwoledgable, (sic?) recommendations. Just my $.02, jd45

[jlchucker]

The barrel must be slugged, prior to shooting any jacketed bullets. The factory Remington 44-40 jacketed bullets are .426", the Winchester's are .425". I would not use a 240 gr. bullet.

That barrel can be from .425" to .432".

It was meant to shoot BP, if Smokless is necessary I would choose Unique.

I was just about to post the same thing. While you can read references saying that .427 is standard for the 44-40, and .429 is often mentioned as common for 44 magnum, etc., the reality is that barrel bores can vary, even in new rifles. In one of my 44 magnum rifles I found that the jacketed RNFP 240 grain component bullet made by Remington wasn't as accurate as some others. In the end, I found that other bullets that I was using (cast as well as jacketed) were of slightly larger diameter, and were much more accurate. I wouldn't use a 240 grain bullet if I were Bob either. I'd slug my bore first, then run--not walk--to a mold supplier for a mold and sizer in the caliber that most closely matches what I need for my 1873, and never look back.

[Bryan Austin]

When w30wcf speaks, people better listen!

[coyote nose]

Here is my 2 cents and I guess once again I will be the minority oddball. I have owned 10 1873s (not all at once...sold some to fund others). Shot the heck out of all of them. Pyrodex or blackpowder ONLY for me. It is just not safe in my mind otherwise. Too many people confuse "strong actions" with "safe actions". Frank Dehaas had a great explanation of the difference in one of his books. Basically, the action may be strong enough for a given load, but if things head south and you DO get gas venting or cartridge rupturing, how SAFE is the action? The 73's are not safe with the toggles, huge firing pin hole, 1800's metallurgy, etc. I just dont do it. I know the factories did load smokeless for it. Factories MAYBE (?) didnt know better back then. We do now. Again, just my 2 cents, you asked for opinions on whether you should shoot 240JHPs with red dot in an 1873 and my opinion is a resounding no.

[Bryan Austin]

Here is my 2 cents and I guess once again I will be the minority oddball. I have owned 10 1873s (not all at once...sold some to fund others). Shot the heck out of all of them. Pyrodex or blackpowder ONLY for me. It is just not safe in my mind otherwise. Too many people confuse "strong actions" with "safe actions". Frank Dehaas had a great explanation of the difference in one of his books. Basically, the action may be strong enough for a given load, but if things head south and you DO get gas venting or cartridge rupturing, how SAFE is the action? The 73's are not safe with the toggles, huge firing pin hole, 1800's metallurgy, etc. I just dont do it. I know the factories did load smokeless for it. Factories MAYBE (?) didnt know better back then. We do now. Again, just my 2 cents, you asked for opinions on whether you should shoot 240JHPs with red dot in an 1873 and my opinion is a resounding no.

coyote, did you know that some of the early smokeless powders actually produced LESS pressures than the black powder loads?

[coyote nose]

No, this is the first I ever heard of that. Very interesting and I would love to see the data. Even so, while I am certainly no engineer to fully understand pressure curves etc and all that, I do know these guns were engineered for black powder. I have gone through this with many people and find there are generally 2 camps: those who okay smokeless in these things, and me( ). Okay, I exagerate slightly! But the arguements usually are "I have been doing this all my life" or "the factory okayed it in 1900", etc. That may be true, but then....why do we wear eye safety glasses when shooting? If we are responsible loaders and never go above pressure limits and only use good brass and components in gunsmith okayed rifles....then we should not have to worry about the safety of an errant cartridge right? After all, the factory ads until the 1960's always showed shooters w/o glasses. My dad shot for 60 years and REFUSED to wear safety glasses.
We wear them for an extra safety margin. Proper smokeless loads may be okay in these. There is no margin left for error though. I wont chance it. There are too many awesome 92's or 94's or 71's out there that I can and DO shoot smokeless in.
Several years ago I stated how a smokeless loaded 1873 blew up and drove the firing pin THROUGH the shooters safety glasses and into his eye socket. A forum member (I cannot now remember if it was this forum or the old shooterstalk forum) replied that he had heard of that incident but could never verify it and doubted it happened. I found the magazine write ups about it for him and either emailed them to him or posted the issues. Bottom line is it happens, rarely, but it does. Not worth it to me.

[Bryan Austin]

No, this is the first I ever heard of that. Very interesting and I would love to see the data. Even so, while I am certainly no engineer to fully understand pressure curves etc and all that, I do know these guns were engineered for black powder. I have gone through this with many people and find there are generally 2 camps: those who okay smokeless in these things, and me( ). Okay, I exagerate slightly! But the arguements usually are "I have been doing this all my life" or "the factory okayed it in 1900", etc. That may be true, but then....why do we wear eye safety glasses when shooting? If we are responsible loaders and never go above pressure limits and only use good brass and components in gunsmith okayed rifles....then we should not have to worry about the safety of an errant cartridge right? After all, the factory ads until the 1960's always showed shooters w/o glasses. My dad shot for 60 years and REFUSED to wear safety glasses.
We wear them for an extra safety margin. Proper smokeless loads may be okay in these. There is no margin left for error though. I wont chance it. There are too many awesome 92's or 94's or 71's out there that I can and DO shoot smokeless in.
Several years ago I stated how a smokeless loaded 1873 blew up and drove the firing pin THROUGH the shooters safety glasses and into his eye socket. A forum member (I cannot now remember if it was this forum or the old shooterstalk forum) replied that he had heard of that incident but could never verify it and doubted it happened. I found the magazine write ups about it for him and either emailed them to him or posted the issues. Bottom line is it happens, rarely, but it does. Not worth it to me.

Safety is over rated. You never saw John Wayne or Randolph Scott wear a helmet while riding a horse? To each his own and I do follow rules when using someone elses facilities. How many deer hunters where safety goggles and earmuffs?

If you don't want to blow something up, don't shoot it. I had an airplane built in 1938 that I restored myself in 1995. The engine quit on take-off and in the trees I went. $75,000 gone. If I didn't want it broke I should not have flown it. I wasn't wearing a helmet either.

Now, old guns are old and no matter what is used they can get broke and a person can get hurt. As long as a person knows this, I could give a hoot what they wear. I just don't like an ignorant person shooting because someone said it's ok when really it isn't.

I have an original Marlin 1888 made in 1891 and have only shot it with black powder. I have no desire to shoot any smokeless in it at all but that is me, not a rule. Opinions are exactly that and should not be confused with facts. 13,000 cup is exactly that but the differences is how fast that pressure peaks. Sure the rifle you mentioned came apart when fired but was it inspected afterwords? Was in in fact broke because it was old, weak, a lose part, etc.....or was it simply the wrong powder used? Maybe a double charge?

I am sick of peoples opinions, not directed at you, and it makes my blood boil. I no longer shoot SASS because there are too many opinions and I can not enjoy myself.

I will look for that powder info for you but I am pretty sure w44wcf has it if I am correct in the first place!

[Bryan Austin]

http://seanlinnane.blogspot.com/2010/04 ... uzzle.html

ignorance or stupidity?

http://www.trapdoorcollector.com/shooterstext.html

It does happen

[coyote nose]

Yes SavvyJack, the gun was inspected. I believe the verdict was double (or excess) charge of smokeless. that was my point I guess. You cant double charge black or pyrodex. I also get what you mean about the SASS stuff, they turned me off with the "spirit of the game" being flushed down the toilet.
Still I have to wonder about others opinions causing your blood to boil, this forum is basically composed of lever gun loving shooters asking other peoples opinions of their rifles, loads, etc. We are all responding to the original poster who wanted an opinion as to whether his load was safe in his gun. He got a lot of other shooters opinions, which is what he wanted. I am sure he will digest all the info and come up with his own opinion.
I almost bought an 1888 Marlin but passed on it...regret that now.

[Bryan Austin]

Yes SavvyJack, the gun was inspected. I believe the verdict was double (or excess) charge of smokeless. that was my point I guess. You cant double charge black or pyrodex. I also get what you mean about the SASS stuff, they turned me off with the "spirit of the game" being flushed down the toilet.
Still I have to wonder about others opinions causing your blood to boil, this forum is basically composed of lever gun loving shooters asking other peoples opinions of their rifles, loads, etc. We are all responding to the original poster who wanted an opinion as to whether his load was safe in his gun. He got a lot of other shooters opinions, which is what he wanted. I am sure he will digest all the info and come up with his own opinion.
I almost bought an 1888 Marlin but passed on it...regret that now.

There are good opinions and bad opinions. Good opinions are backed up with facts and others with no facts at all....the latter ones are the ones that get my "blood boiling" because they are not backed up with facts.

[Bryan Austin]

Yes SavvyJack, the gun was inspected. I believe the verdict was double (or excess) charge of smokeless. that was my point I guess. You cant double charge black or pyrodex. I also get what you mean about the SASS stuff, they turned me off with the "spirit of the game" being flushed down the toilet.
Still I have to wonder about others opinions causing your blood to boil, this forum is basically composed of lever gun loving shooters asking other peoples opinions of their rifles, loads, etc. We are all responding to the original poster who wanted an opinion as to whether his load was safe in his gun. He got a lot of other shooters opinions, which is what he wanted. I am sure he will digest all the info and come up with his own opinion.
I almost bought an 1888 Marlin but passed on it...regret that now.

My bad, My Marlin is an 1889 made in 1891