Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
The M1892 is a strong action and I’ve seen more than one later production ’92 rechambered to .44 magnum. I also know some hunters loaded .44-40 in a ’92 with jacketed bullets up to near .44 magnum performance. What are the thoughts performance comparison of modern factory .30-30 ammo vs. .44-40 loaded to the level I mentioned?
28 gauge said
The 44-40 as factory loaded today is kept to low pressure.However ,in the past a high velocity load was available for it.I wonder what the velocity of that HV load was and its hitting power?
In the 1918 catalog they list “Model 92 Special WHV” at 1563fps with a 200gr bullet. The standard load is 1300fps with a 200gr bullet also. T/R
twobit said
I am in the kitchen cooking some rabbit for dinner so don’t hold me to perfect accuracy here. Modern Winchester and Remington 44-40 shoots around 1200 fps. Black Hills ammunition is right at 800 fps.Michael
Micheal awesome reply. You just took me back to the good ole days! My thoughts are somewhere else right now from days gone by(thank you) but yes BH is approx 800 fps.
Rick C
Regarding the .44-40, my Lyman Reloading Handbook (which I purchased new in 1982) lists Winchester Model 92 and Marlin Model 94 as test rifles. For 200 Remington jacketed soft point bullets, they list maximum loads that generate up to 2079 fps.
Paging forward to the Lyman .44 magnum rifle loads, they don’t list a 200 grain bullet. However, their maximum load for a 225 jacketed bullet generated 1872 fps.
Switching to my Hornady Handbook (1982) they list a .44 magnum rifle maximum load with a 200 grain soft point bullet reaching 2100 fps. So – only 21 fps faster than the top 200 grain .44-40 load. I suppose this makes sense as the .44-40 and .44 magnum have similar case capacities. And if you fill them with the same powders, with all the powder they will hold, the results should be darn similar.
28 gauge said
The 44-40 as factory loaded today is kept to low pressure.However ,in the past a high velocity load was available for it.I wonder what the velocity of that HV load was and its hitting power?
The Winchester 1905 catalog lists the Energy of Bullets (at 50 ft) for the standard 44-40 load at 688 ft/lbs (velocity 1245 fps) , and for the WHV, 999 ft/lbs (velocity 1500 fps). I think when you start trying to push these bullets and bores beyond velocities they were intended, your accuracy goes down, you run the risk of damaging your rifle, and your just wasting powder. Winchester spent a lot more time and money researching and designing cartridges for each caliber than likely all our combined experiences, to find what what works best. So sticking to those parameters has always worked for me.
That deer at the end of the rifle sights isnt going to know if you shoot him with a 1200 fps or 1500 fps load or if it was a 180 grain or 220 grain bullet – he’s just going to know he’s been hit, and may be dead depending on your shot placement. At these velocities your not going to get much expansion, especially if you use hard cast bullets or even possibly jacketed bullets (unless they are hollow-point). Most entrance and exit wounds are close to the same diameter in my experience. Thats why Ive switched to the softer lead casts using 20/1 & 30/1, or mix of the two with a little better expansion recognized in exit wounds on hogs and deer.
As a note, the 38-40 WHV load with 180 grain bullet had 1154 ft/lbs of energy at 50 feet at 1700 fps velocity and was equivalent to our outperformed the 44-40 in wood board penetration tests using a soft point bullet or full metal patched bullets, as per the 1905 catalog.
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
1892takedown said
That deer at the end of the rifle sights isnt going to know if you shoot him with a 1200 fps or 1500 fps load or if it was a 180 grain or 220 grain bullet – he’s just going to know he’s been hit, and may be dead depending on your shot placement. At these velocities your not going to get much expansion, especially if you use hard cast bullets or even possibly jacketed bullets (unless they are hollow-point). Most entrance and exit wounds are close to the same diameter in my experience. Thats why Ive switched to the softer lead casts using 20/1 & 30/1, or mix of the two with a little better expansion recognized in exit wounds on hogs and deer.
As a note, the 38-40 WHV load with 180 grain bullet had 1154 ft/lbs of energy at 50 feet at 1700 fps velocity and was equivalent to our outperformed the 44-40 in wood board penetration tests using a soft point bullet or full metal patched bullets, as per the 1905 catalog.
Very interesting,1892.In the past I have bagged deer with the Model 1886 .45-70 using factory 405 grain bullets.Like you with your 44-40,I found the entrance and exit to be about the same size.
Interesting that the 38-40 WHV out preformed the 44-40 WHV.I know another old fellow,now gone as well,who use to shoot moose with a Model 92 38-40 carbine.
I think at close range it really doesn’t matter if you are using a standard velocity 44 WCF or a 30 WCF. I have killed a lot of deer with a shotgun that shoots slugs at about 1350 FPS. It’s all about shot placement. If you blow through the heart or lungs the hole size doesn’t matter.
1892takedown said
28 gauge said
The 44-40 as factory loaded today is kept to low pressure.However ,in the past a high velocity load was available for it.I wonder what the velocity of that HV load was and its hitting power?
The Winchester 1905 catalog lists the Energy of Bullets (at 50 ft) for the standard 44-40 load at 688 ft/lbs (velocity 1245 fps) , and for the WHV, 999 ft/lbs (velocity 1500 fps). I think when you start trying to push these bullets and bores beyond velocities they were intended, your accuracy goes down, you run the risk of damaging your rifle, and your just wasting powder. Winchester spent a lot more time and money researching and designing cartridges for each caliber than likely all our combined experiences, to find what what works best. So sticking to those parameters has always worked for me.
That deer at the end of the rifle sights isnt going to know if you shoot him with a 1200 fps or 1500 fps load or if it was a 180 grain or 220 grain bullet – he’s just going to know he’s been hit, and may be dead depending on your shot placement. At these velocities your not going to get much expansion, especially if you use hard cast bullets or even possibly jacketed bullets (unless they are hollow-point). Most entrance and exit wounds are close to the same diameter in my experience. Thats why Ive switched to the softer lead casts using 20/1 & 30/1, or mix of the two with a little better expansion recognized in exit wounds on hogs and deer.
As a note, the 38-40 WHV load with 180 grain bullet had 1154 ft/lbs of energy at 50 feet at 1700 fps velocity and was equivalent to our outperformed the 44-40 in wood board penetration tests using a soft point bullet or full metal patched bullets, as per the 1905 catalog.
Let me ask it this way. Aside from collector considerations, how ill-advised (e.g. not safe) do people here think it is to rebarrel a later production M1892 to .44 magnum? Or, rechamber to .44 magnum? As I stated above, the .44-40 holds about the same powder as a .44 magnum and shoots about the same bullet (or if you reload, perhaps exactly the same bullet).
I can’t answer your question but I would suggest you check the chamber pressure to make sure you are not going over the pressure the original barrel has been proof tested for.
steve004 said
Let me ask it this way. Aside from collector considerations, how ill-advised (e.g. not safe) do people here think it is to rebarrel a later production M1892 to .44 magnum? Or, rechamber to .44 magnum? As I stated above, the .44-40 holds about the same powder as a .44 magnum and shoots about the same bullet (or if you reload, perhaps exactly the same bullet).
What would be the point if you’re handloading, since the .44-40 case can be loaded up to .44 Mag performance? I expect many ’92s have been rechambered without blowing up, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they loosened up after a sufficient number of rounds were fired, leading to excess headspace, which all rear-locking actions are susceptible to.
clarence said
steve004 said
Let me ask it this way. Aside from collector considerations, how ill-advised (e.g. not safe) do people here think it is to rebarrel a later production M1892 to .44 magnum? Or, rechamber to .44 magnum? As I stated above, the .44-40 holds about the same powder as a .44 magnum and shoots about the same bullet (or if you reload, perhaps exactly the same bullet).
What would be the point if you’re handloading, since the .44-40 case can be loaded up to .44 Mag performance? I expect many ’92s have been rechambered without blowing up, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they loosened up after a sufficient number of rounds were fired, leading to excess headspace, which all rear-locking actions are susceptible to.
I mentioned seeing M1892’s rechambered to .44 magnum over the years. I suspect at least part of the motivation to do so was to be able to use factory .44 magnum ammunition. Chuck’s point about the barrel proofing capacity is a good one. They are three things in play here: the strength of the action, the strength of the barrel and the strength of the brass used (I suspect .44 magnum brass is stronger than modern .44-40 brass)
With a M1892 that has been rebarreled to .44 magnum, it is only the strength of the action inplay. We know the design of the action is adequate for .44 magnum rifles. There are various more recent manufacture, “Winchester” versions of the M1892 in .44 magnum that have come out. I have also been intrigued (but not interested in owning) the Rossi .454 Casull which is based on a ’92 action design. The steel used in an action on a late production vintage M1892 compares how, to the more recent manufactured, “Winchester” M1892 and the Rossi?
Bryan Austin said
Which case is the 44 Magnum, the other two are 44-40
I can’t say I can tell – which I’m sure it what this photo is supposed to demonstrate. It begs the question why did the world need a .44 magnum? The predecessor to the .44 magnum was the .44 special. And I can see how lengthening the .44 special case allowed more powder. But wait, there was already the .44-40 that held the same amount of powder and fired the same bullet. I know, supposedly the .44-40 shoots a .427 bullet. However, my Lyman Handbook notes the cast bullets used were sized to .430. And in their two test rifles, the Winchester M1892 has a grove diameter of .432 and the Marlin Model 94, .436!
I suppose the answer is the older guns such as M1873’s and Colt SAA’s. The .450 Marlin can’t do anything a .45-70 can’t do, except it can’t be fired in a .45-70 chamber. I know some smaller companies have produced some very hot .45-70 loads. They print clear warnings on the boxes to not fire them in old guns.
Online
steve004 said
Bryan Austin said
Which case is the 44 Magnum, the other two are 44-40
I can’t say I can tell – which I’m sure it what this photo is supposed to demonstrate. It begs the question why did the world need a .44 magnum? The predecessor to the .44 magnum was the .44 special.
Darn good question!
If you have a Smith & Wesson Target Model Triple Lock revolver chambered in .44 S & W Special, why ever would you need a firearm chambered in .44 Magnum?
I’ll never figure out the photographs on this site and how to do it. Here’s four of the six I wanted to post and some decided to flip upside down as well.
mrcvs said
Bryan Austin said
Which case is the 44 Magnum, the other two are 44-40
I can’t say I can tell – which I’m sure it what this photo is supposed to demonstrate. It begs the question why did the world need a .44 magnum? The predecessor to the .44 magnum was the .44 special.
Darn good question!
If you have a Smith & Wesson Target Model Triple Lock revolver chambered in .44 S & W Special, why ever would you need a firearm chambered in .44 Magnum?
And, if the .44 S&W Special wasn’t powerful enough, there was the more powerful .44-40 WHV available!
mrcvs said
Bryan Austin said
Which case is the 44 Magnum, the other two are 44-40
I can’t say I can tell – which I’m sure it what this photo is supposed to demonstrate. It begs the question why did the world need a .44 magnum? The predecessor to the .44 magnum was the .44 special.
Darn good question!
If you have a Smith & Wesson Target Model Triple Lock revolver chambered in .44 S & W Special, why ever would you need a firearm chambered in .44 Magnum?
OK, I’ll bite on that question… Because you cannot shoot a 220-gr FMJ load @1900 fps out of that S&W without it blowing up in your hands! OTH, my Ruger Super Red Hawk .44 Mag loves it!! When I used to regularly compete in IHMSA matches, I would usually shoot 500-rounds per month of that load in that gun, and I shot it in competition for nearly 6-years before I stopped competition shooting. These days on the rare occasion that I shoot that gun, I run 180-gr Sierra JHP loads @1975 fps through it (I now have a Leupold M8-2X scope on it). It will cleanly take deer sized animals out to 100-yards.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
mrcvs said
Bryan Austin said
Which case is the 44 Magnum, the other two are 44-40
I can’t say I can tell – which I’m sure it what this photo is supposed to demonstrate. It begs the question why did the world need a .44 magnum? The predecessor to the .44 magnum was the .44 special.
Darn good question!
If you have a Smith & Wesson Target Model Triple Lock revolver chambered in .44 S & W Special, why ever would you need a firearm chambered in .44 Magnum?
OK, I’ll bite on that question… Because you cannot shoot a 220-gr FMJ load @1900 fps out of that S&W without it blowing up in your hands! OTH, my Ruger Super Red Hawk .44 Mag loves it!! When I used to regularly compete in IHMSA matches, I would usually shoot 500-rounds per month of that load in that gun, and I shot it in competition for nearly 6-years before I stopped competition shooting. These days on the rare occasion that I shoot that gun, I run 180-gr Sierra JHP loads @1975 fps through it (I now have a Leupold M8-2X scope on it). It will cleanly take deer sized animals out to 100-yards.
Bert, now that makes total sense. But my Triple Lock revolver is CLASSIC!
Yeap, the 200gr 44-40, even at High Velocities, will never ever match the 240gr 44 Magnum’s performance out of a handgun…where it was designed. As far as the 44 Magnum in a rifle, it will never match the 44-40’s accuracy out to 300 yards. Neither is really needed but it is what it is. The 44 Magnum handgun is built like a tank but even it needs to be loaded different for rifle performance.
If the shooter loves the 44-40 and wants to make the best out it at different ranges and for different uses…it is very versatile in both rifle and revolver when loaded correctly.
If you could really care less what cartridge you use, and performance is what you want…get a 44 Magnum for revolver use and a 45-70 for carbine use and a 30-06 for longer distances or even a .270 for 300 yards. Sight the .270 in at 50 yards and aim 4″ high at 300 yards, meat on the table.
It takes an abondance of skill to do the same with the 44-40 with all the different loads for all the different options..one of which I am too old to achieve! That’s my excuse! 
BTW, the 44-40 revolver used 250gr handloads back in the day (1930’s)…published loads to prove it! 
1 Guest(s)
