44-40 vs muzzleloader?

When Winchester introduced the 44-40 cartridge in 1873, the vast majority of American hunters, both individual and commercial, used muzzleloaders.
I'd guess the majority were like Hawkens or "Kentuckys."

The Winchester '73 offerred multiple-shot/rapid fire for military purposes like Indian fighting, but how did it compare to the contemporary muzzleloader
for hunting? Not talking buffalo guns, just a homesteader or local maerket-hunter.
I would love to know how the '73 Win, for instance, compared to a Pernnsylvania long rifle, for instance, for hunting deer & the like.
Long range accuracy? Terminal bullet performance?

I shoot and reload 44-40 for both my Colt single-action and '92 Winchester, black powder of course; and have taken feral pigs up close with that cartridge.
In say 1878, should I have ditched my Hawken for a Winchester?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hogpost

When Winchester introduced the 44-40 cartridge in 1873, the vast majority of American hunters, both individual and commercial, used muzzleloaders.
I'd guess the majority were like Hawkens or "Kentuckys."

The Winchester '73 offerred multiple-shot/rapid fire for military purposes like Indian fighting, but how did it compare to the contemporary muzzleloader
for hunting? Not talking buffalo guns, just a homesteader or local maerket-hunter.
I would love to know how the '73 Win, for instance, compared to a Pernnsylvania long rifle, for instance, for hunting deer & the like.
Long range accuracy? Terminal bullet performance?

I shoot and reload 44-40 for both my Colt single-action and '92 Winchester, black powder of course; and have taken feral pigs up close with that cartridge.
In say 1878, should I have ditched my Hawken for a Winchester?

---

This should start a good argument :D
I say if the long rifle is a 50 cal its at least as good as the 44/40 or maybe has a slight edge - ON THE FIRST SHOT - big edge close up - not so much at distance - they come level at 100yards ....... which is about the limit for anything with iron sights in the hands of your average joe - it takes a seriously good rifleman to score consistently on game past 100yards with iron barrel sights. ------here they come !! hordes of fellers that done a one shot, drop bambi in its tracks at 300 yards .................yeah ok ! I got some ocean frontage in nebraska to sell ya.

I imagine the rifled 44-40 would be more accurate along with having an extra dozen shots to back you up. But I've never owned a front stuffer so wouldn't know.
Like joe said, the 50 cal round may have a bit more inertia behind it but I'd grab the '73 every time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hogpost

In say 1878, should I have ditched my Hawken for a Winchester?

---

History is a good indicator of how people resolved that question. Cartridge rifles of both single shot and repeaters we expensive for the time yet in a 15-year period between 1865 and 1880 muzzleloading rifles mostly became obsolete. In 1878 Winchester 73 were not very common yet with less that 40,000 made. https://gun-data.com/winchester_73.htm

I have both here, quite a few muzzleloaders and an original '73 carbine. Both are great fun but as a tool for survival the '73 is far better both for hunting and combat. If nothing else it is easier to load and unload, easier to clean, and more reliable when needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silhouette

I imagine the rifled 44-40 would be more accurate along with having an extra dozen shots to back you up. But I've never owned a front stuffer so wouldn't know.
Like joe said, the 50 cal round may have a bit more inertia behind it but I'd grab the '73 every time.

---

If you only had one round left for the 73 which one would you take ????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indian joe

If you only had one round left for the 73 which one would you take ????

---

Whichever I shot the best.

RP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M-Tecs

History is a good indicator of how people resolved that question. Cartridge rifles of both single shot and repeaters we expensive for the time yet in a 15-year period between 1865 and 1880 muzzleloading rifles mostly became obsolete. In 1878 Winchester 73 were not very common yet with less that 40,000 made. https://gun-data.com/winchester_73.htm

---

Agreed. People generally went for new technology when it came along. 44-40 BP replaced muzzleloaders then 30-30 replaced 44-40. Any doubt, just look at pictures of Texas or Arizona Rangers over the decades.

People who used a rifle daily for survival wanted the best they could afford. We now have the luxury to play around with older systems for the sake of nostalgia.

i failed to take one of the largest bucks i ever had a chance to take in a driving snow storm with my .50 flintlock rifle, the deer was laying down in a dead fall at about 40 yards well with in the range of my rifle. from a good rest leaning against a tree i touched off the set trigger and nothing but the sound of the lock working, no sparks . the deer jumped up and ran, i didn,t ever have time to recock and try again. not the rifles fault, mine for not waterproofing the lock enough. but with one of my 44-40,s he would have been mine.

When you're talking about muzzleloaders, it's hard to compare, because everyone is using a different load. Some people might load 50gr in their .50cal. Others might load 150gr.

A .50cal round ball is 171 grains. If we assume a velocity of 1500fps, it'll start with 818 ftLbs at the muzzle. At 50 yards, it will have 495 ftLbs. At 100, you're down to 358.

The .44-40 used a 200gr bullet at around 1300fps. It will start with 738 ftLbs. At 50 yards, it will have 623 ftLbs. At 100, it has 540.

If you load the .50 up to 1800fps, you can beat the 44-40 by 59 ftLbs at 50 yards, but you'd have to be over 2200fps to match the .44-40 at 100. The reason being that round ball B.C.s are abysmal.

Add to that the ease of maintenance.

So, why did a lot of people stay with muzzleloaders for so long? I think it was because the muzzleloader was good enough for what they needed, and they already had it. Those homesteaders just may not have had the extra cash to drop on a new Winchester.

I suspect most stuck with the muzzleloader because few had the money to upgrade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veeman

I suspect most stuck with the muzzleloader because few had the money to upgrade.

---

I agree and also with a ML if you have powder and ball (maybe caps) you still shooting and don’t need to rely on a place to get cartridges which cost cash money.

This discussion seems to have disregarded the Henry rifle and the Improved Henry, the 1866 'Yellow Boy", both firing the 44 Henry rim fire cartridge. That was a 200g bullet that reportedly came out of the muzzle of 24" rifles at 1100-1150 fps. Not as good as the 44 WCF that replaced it but still good enough to convince a lot of frontiersman, settlers, lawmen, and hunters of the advantage of repeating large (for the time) capacity long arms.

The military didn't get on board with the repeating rifle idea until 1892 and the 30-40 Kraig. By then the 1892 Winchester was trying to take the place of its forerunner the 1873 Winchester, chambered for the same 44 WCF cartridge along with the 38 WCF and the 32 WCF as its predecessor. The 1873 Winchester stayed in production into the 20th Century. It must have been a pretty decent rifle.

Dave

Even with .44 Henry, you'd have to move that round ball at 1800fps to beat it at 100. It's nothing to sneeze at, as many a native can't attest.

The real advantage is the conical bullets. Even the blunt, stubby ones used in these cartridges are so much more efficient than the round balls that preceeded them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eastbank

i failed to take one of the largest bucks i ever had a chance to take in a driving snow storm with my .50 flintlock rifle, the deer was laying down in a dead fall at about 40 yards well with in the range of my rifle. from a good rest leaning against a tree i touched off the set trigger and nothing but the sound of the lock working, no sparks . the deer jumped up and ran, i didn,t ever have time to recock and try again. not the rifles fault, mine for not waterproofing the lock enough. but with one of my 44-40,s he would have been mine.

---

with a caplock also hes "in the bag"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave T

This discussion seems to have disregarded the Henry rifle and the Improved Henry, the 1866 'Yellow Boy", both firing the 44 Henry rim fire cartridge. That was a 200g bullet that reportedly came out of the muzzle of 24" rifles at 1100-1150 fps. Not as good as the 44 WCF that replaced it but still good enough to convince a lot of frontiersman, settlers, lawmen, and hunters of the advantage of repeating large (for the time) capacity long arms.

The military didn't get on board with the repeating rifle idea until 1892 and the 30-40 Kraig. By then the 1892 Winchester was trying to take the place of its forerunner the 1873 Winchester, chambered for the same 44 WCF cartridge along with the 38 WCF and the 32 WCF as its predecessor. The 1873 Winchester stayed in production into the 20th Century. It must have been a pretty decent rifle.

Dave

---

It was - they are a sweet thing to use

I have an 1876 (45/75) and an 1886 (45/70) ----limit them both to blackpowder loadings and in a dangerous situation I would pick the 76 in an instant

Yeah the 86 is a stronger action - no question about that - but even at the top end of blackpowder loads 50/95 vs 50/110 ? not a heck of a lot in it. !

What the rifle offered as a package for hunting, protection and ease of use is why people who loved it, the rifle was pretty light weight if you think about it as a system you only needed to carry the rifle, ammunition and cleaning equipment, vs all the stuff you needed for a muzzle loading firearm

In the Spring Valley area of Wisconsin(a lot of woods) in that era Pa Inglis was a settler farmer of the British type and hunter for home use. He used a muzzle loader as per his daughter's book.

In the Augusta Wisconsin area(prairie for the farm land) in that era one Mr. Martin a farmer and commercial hunter/trapper used the best and latest guns made. He was an interesting guy. On his 320 acre farm made about $200,000 a year in today's dollars. On his hunting/trapping in a year he made $300,000 to $400,000 a year in today's dollars. With that kind of money he loaned money to local farmers. Shoot one of the last prairie elk in Wisconsin. He would travel as far as Michigan when the passenger pigeons nested there.

When looking at pictures from then and without much info , in one it shows one guy with a Winchester, one with a Sharps and one with a muzzle loader.

I'd hazard to say that most farmers had a muzzle loader shotgun and a serious hunter had modern guns, based on this and other reading I've done. Huge numbers of civil war muzzle loaders were bored smooth when sold to the public as surplus.

I'd also guess that any settler who was nearer to where there might be trouble with outlaws, Indians etc would have been more inclined to have a repeater or single shot cartridge rifle, plus a revolver. Even Pa Ingalls took a revolver when he moved to Indian territory.

the loads for my 1892 win in 44-40 are 21.5 grs 2400 powder and a 200 gr jacketed bullet at 1600 fps.

Listen to an audio book last week about two cousins who headed into northern Maine around 1880 for a winter of hunting and trapping. One had a 10 gauge muzzleloader and the other a .44 Wesson single shot.

Being a Hawkin rifle was mentioned in the post and that seems to be considered what all the mountain men carried, it might be of interest that in a different book it is mentioned that in a small fight with some natives 1/2 of the mountain men couldn't/didn't shoot because they had muskets and only carried buckshot with them and the needed range was to great for that.