earliest 1892 44-40s with modern JHP

[mickbr]

As I understand there were several improvements in metallurgy and action strength as the 1892's progressed and just wondered which original 1892's 44-40 can be fed with JHP?

[Bryan Austin]

All of them, and all of the 73's. Nothing anywhere in any Winchester documents states otherwise. The only exceptions are noted below.

By 1895 Smokeless powder was offered for both the 73' and 92', as so stated on the box. Not only does the main call-out mention the "Winchester Rifle Model 1873" in BIG GIGANTIC LETERS (sorry, got carried away there), it also mentions Metal Patched (JSP) bullets. These were loaded with "17gr" of Dupont No. 2 smokeless powder, from it's inception in 1895, through 1925 with NO CHANGES. By at least 1917 "they" (meaning normal loads) were noted as a "13,000cup service pressure loads with proof pressures to 16,500cup". Since no changes were ever made to the 1895 to 1926 loads, this would include the years 1895 through 1925 as well as today. Winchester warned against using them in Colt's revolvers (boxes noted "NOT FOR PISTOLS") by 1900 and into 1908. The "NOT FOR PISTOLS" call-out was replaced with "Soft Point Bullets" by 1909.

s-l1600 (4).jpg

s-l1600 (6).jpg

1910-1912, Stab Crimp

125071698_380291009883394_6251052657193131634_n.jpg

124549629_1850308935109965_383489093152190019_n (2).jpg

By 1903, manufactured specifically for the Model 92', the 44 Winchester High Velocity was offered and also used Metal Patched (JSP) bullets......not to be used in the 73' or Pistols
These new HV loads were charged with 19gr of Sharpshooter smokeless powder and created 1,500fps. The velocity was increased to 1,565fps by 1925 and 1,570fps by 1938. Last manufactured in 1938 and last seen in catalogs in 1943...some 40 years of production for those that think it was such a horrendous, dangerous and unpopular load. An employee starting in 1903 could have retired when these were discontinued. These loads had a service pressure of 18,000cup, seen on WRA Cartridge Engineering Department documents, with proof pressures of 23,500cup.

1909 Top Label

121011614_390570698778689_3573194418269197475_n.png

1914 Side Label

SidesEnds.jpg

164891439_480080883027765_8324421010584667460_n.jpg

164034740_3735458153236758_5089437226953622987_n.jpg

1930's

WHV1.jpg

WHV 7 Side End Labels.jpg

[mickbr]

Thanks Bryan, another good read!

[earlmck]

So playing around in QuickLoad -- it looks like with the benefit of modern powder formulation -- a feller could build a 1500 fps load and squeek under the 13k cup pressure limits for the old '73. According to QL that would be 24.5 grains of RL-7, 200 grain jacketed bullet loaded to 1.590" COAL and 100% load density.

My one and only 44/40 is a Rossi which would easily digest much higher pressures, though I have only loaded it with cast bullet plinker type stuff. So I have no real world experience here, but I know that several of our levergunners do have such experience. Just got to messing with QL and thought I'd report my 2 cents.

Thanks for that old factory load info Brian. Interesting that the factory would load ammo for many years that could be damaging in many of the guns still being produced that would accept the cartridge. Wonder if that has anything to do with my observation that every '73 I ever got hold of had fairly serious excess headspace. (All 3 of them ) Yeah, I'm not vastly experienced with the model 1873 -- they have been a rare breed around my part of the world.

[Bryan Austin]

So playing around in QuickLoad -- it looks like with the benefit of modern powder formulation -- a feller could build a 1500 fps load and squeek under the 13k cup pressure limits for the old '73. According to QL that would be 24.5 grains of RL-7, 200 grain jacketed bullet loaded to 1.590" COAL and 100% load density.

My one and only 44/40 is a Rossi which would easily digest much higher pressures, though I have only loaded it with cast bullet plinker type stuff. So I have no real world experience here, but I know that several of our levergunners do have such experience. Just got to messing with QL and thought I'd report my 2 cents.

Thanks for that old factory load info Brian. Interesting that the factory would load ammo for many years that could be damaging in many of the guns still being produced that would accept the cartridge. Wonder if that has anything to do with my observation that every '73 I ever got hold of had fairly serious excess headspace. (All 3 of them ) Yeah, I'm not vastly experienced with the model 1873 -- they have been a rare breed around my part of the world.

Question #1, is quickload results for the 44-40 in CIP or CUP or PSI? (or is that three questions? )

Have you seen my Reloder 7 pressure test results?
25.6 Reloder 7, 215 LRNFP, Accurate 43-214A (215gr), 1,435fps, 10,542psi, 12,461cup, 4" Groups at 100 yards and 14 3/8" x 24" at 265 yards

Note Shots T7 and T8....I think I had two with a lighter crimp!!!

Test 90.jpg

Actual holes, 37 hits @ 265 yards
Blue dots represent John Korts replicated Henry ballistic hits
White Dots represents Swiss Sharpshooter hits using the Model 1866 44 Henry at 250 yards at the 1866 Switzerland trials in Switzerland.
However, these loads were slightly slower at 1,350fps due to a bit less bullet crimp used.

277844091_861122985288569_2863516918095875099_nAAoverlayJohnKort.jpg

Yes, interesting indeed that they stuck with the same powders for so long!!!!!!

286397011_2088886954625210_7281942436161073808_n.jpg

[earlmck]

Question #1, is quickload results for the 44-40 in CIP or CUP or PSI? (or is that three questions? )

Have you seen my Reloder 7 pressure test results?
25.6 Reloder 7, 215 LRNFP, Accurate 43-214A (215gr), 1,435fps, 10,542psi, 12,461cup, 4" Groups at 100 yards and 14 3/8" x 24" at 265 yards

QL is using psi for pressures. Looks like QL is predicting lots more pressure (over 15k psi) for loads where your actual data was in the 10k psi range. Always this difference between predicted and actual. That RL-7 is looking like a nice powder for 44/40.

I have been using 26 grains of it with a 200 grain Accurate bullet in 38/40 with my 1892, but I'm pretty sure I'm getting more pressure than you'd want to put in a Win 1873. QL says the 38/40 load would give 1820 fps at 25k psi but I'm getting under 1700 fps so probably somewhat less pressure also.

[Bryan Austin]

Question #1, is quickload results for the 44-40 in CIP or CUP or PSI? (or is that three questions? )

Have you seen my Reloder 7 pressure test results?
25.6 Reloder 7, 215 LRNFP, Accurate 43-214A (215gr), 1,435fps, 10,542psi, 12,461cup, 4" Groups at 100 yards and 14 3/8" x 24" at 265 yards

QL is using psi for pressures. Looks like QL is predicting lots more pressure (over 15k psi) for loads where your actual data was in the 10k psi range. Always this difference between predicted and actual. That RL-7 is looking like a nice powder for 44/40.

I have been using 26 grains of it with a 200 grain Accurate bullet in 38/40 with my 1892, but I'm pretty sure I'm getting more pressure than you'd want to put in a Win 1873. QL says the 38/40 load would give 1820 fps at 25k psi but I'm getting under 1700 fps so probably somewhat less pressure also.

I had QL as well but I have not updated it in a long time. Mine still used CIP. I first used QL, then checked it after actually doing the physical test with the PT II. The QL was so far off, I stopped using it completely.

After recording 96 tests, 960 shots, with the PT II system...I was able to reference the results with factory and handload data with very close pressures and velocities.

26gr is certainly pushing it. I can regulate nearly 150fps average by simply adjusting the amount of crimp I use on the 25.6gr load. Other factors I have not shared like AOL, case length, seating depth etc. I also use .428" bullets in the .429" bore with the last RL-7 loads tested.

[marlinman93]

I make a habit to not shoot jacketed bullets in any of my old rifles. I've got no problems at all using light smokeless loads, but considering these guns are still shooting well after over 100 years, I'm not going to shoot jacketed bullets down old softer steel barrels.

[Bryan Austin]

I make a habit to not shoot jacketed bullets in any of my old rifles. I've got no problems at all using light smokeless loads, but considering these guns are still shooting well after over 100 years, I'm not going to shoot jacketed bullets down old softer steel barrels.

One or two shots a year for hunting.....won't hurt a thing!

[marlinman93]

I make a habit to not shoot jacketed bullets in any of my old rifles. I've got no problems at all using light smokeless loads, but considering these guns are still shooting well after over 100 years, I'm not going to shoot jacketed bullets down old softer steel barrels.

One or two shots a year for hunting.....won't hurt a thing!

Agree. But I also don't personally feel a jacketed bullet is needed for hunting. I've taken all my deer or elk using cast bullets in my antique rifles. Cast bullets do quite well.

[Bryan Austin]

I make a habit to not shoot jacketed bullets in any of my old rifles. I've got no problems at all using light smokeless loads, but considering these guns are still shooting well after over 100 years, I'm not going to shoot jacketed bullets down old softer steel barrels.

One or two shots a year for hunting.....won't hurt a thing!

Agree. But I also don't personally feel a jacketed bullet is needed for hunting. I've taken all my deer or elk using cast bullets in my antique rifles. Cast bullets do quite well.

Personally I think lead bullets perform better in some instances, mainly accuracy.....but all is well
Used this 44-40 240gr to harvest a buck in 2017

240a.jpg

Sometimes, lead bullets can expand just as good as jacketed soft or even hollow points.

26A_n.jpg

All 44-40

498Lineup.jpg

Gel Test 44-40 Winchester JSP

44-40HV-1.jpg

Dscf3305.jpg

testchart.jpg

[marlinman93]

When it comes to lead bullets, and if a person casts, they can cast their bullets in whatever alloy they prefer for best expansion. And with various mold designs pretty much cast the design and shape they want for whatever the use will be.
I've always cast my own bullets for older cartridge designs, and only bought bullets when I was loading for my modern high power bolt action rifles.