Winchester 1873

[clum553946]

Ok, so I wandered into this gun shop next door to the Mexican place I eat at when I'm fishing at Clear Lake & this was on the rack! Got a sweet deal on it, it's a 44-40 so I grabbed it! It was old enough to buy it over the counter, so it sorta followed me home. The bore had a ton of grime & lint in it, but I got lucky & it has good rifling after I cleaned it. Action is strong with good lockup & no play. Took it to the range when I got back, shot some of my 160 gr reloads & it proceeded to tumble the bullets. I thought I was going to have to increase the bullet diameter as I cast at .429, but I had a few 200 gr. loads & it shot those really well. Guess the bullet weight make all the difference. Apparently this was a closet kicker that was inherited & the owner sold it because no one was shooting it! That's gonna change! I wasn't looking for a 73, I have a grip of 92's but I'm glad I ran into this one!

[021]

Gotta love the gun that won the west. Whether it did or not. Dont find'em at the store much any more, ya' got lucky!

[Ballistics in Scotland]

It looks like a very good buy if the price was right. It looks some way from mint condition, but you could pay a lot of money for better, and perhaps also for worse. It might have been made after the west was won, since about a tarter pof production was twentieth century, but you can safely say it lived in interesting times. Here is a website with production dates:

http://www.winchesterguns.com/librar...ail.asp?id=401

Not liking 160gr. bullets but being happy with 200 is puzzling. I have the Winchester catalogue for 1899 in front of me (a reprint, unfortunately), and the cartridge with ".44 Winchester Mod 1973" written on it, clearly the .44-40, has a 200gr. bullet. The rifling would therefore be more than was needed for 160gr., but I can't imagine it stripping the rifling with the sort of charge you would use in the 73, and .429in. diameter should be fine too. 160gr. should work well in a 73 as usually constituted. It might be that the throat has eroded, and the shorter bearing surface of the lighter bullet allows it to tip before engaging the rifling.

It seems pretty certain that you can get some good shooting from it. But if you end up thinking accuracy might be improved, and it looks like an erosion problem, you might go to slightly heavier bullets - a longer bearing surface being the point of this. Winchester marketed .44 rounds for the Colt Lightning and the Marlin, which were probably identical except for having 217gr. bullets. You do have to watch pressure in a 73, especially an original 73, but with an appropriate load, which means black powder or a close equivalent, I don't think that much heavier a bullet would overstrain it.

[John Taylor]

One of my customers told me he found a 73 new in the box at an old hardware store that was going out of business after the owner died. Seems the family did not want it and sold everything just to get rid of it. I think he got it for the price marked on the box, like $35. Also picked up the box of ammo to fit it that was as old as the rifle. Said it was found on one of the top shelves out of sight. I never find deals like that but I did get a 73 that was found in the crawl space under a house that was being tore down in town.

[lobogunleather]

Good find! The '73's are very desirable and a lot of fun to load for and shoot. The .44-40 is one that I had never been fortunate enough to have, but remedied that earlier this year. Now I am enjoying it!

[ndnchf]

Nice find, congrats. A nice '73 is a thing of beauty. I picked up this original carbine a few years ago. Unfortunately it had a bulged barrel and could not be salvaged. But John Taylor made a beautiful new barrel for it and its a real shooter now. I have a pretty good collection of BPCRs, but this is my favorite. You may find yourself feeling the same way about yours!

[northmn]

Mike Venturino has written several articles concerning loading the 44-40. Many aimed at revolvers as there have been some issues with cylinder/bore diameter. It is an interesting caliber and should offer hours of enjoyment. As stated the 73 is not recommended for anything resembling hot loads.
Wondered about the popularity of the caliber and rifles as it is no power house. Personally I suspect it was an opportunistic rifle/caliber kind of like the rifles I carry on my 4-wheeler and tractor. Remember an individual mentioning how his uncle used to take his 32 Special with him even to the outhouse during the depression or right after WWII.

DP

[Ballistics in Scotland]

No doubt he knew his own outhouse better than we do. The 73 certainly stayed in production long after the 92 did the same pistol-cartridge job, so somebody must have liked it. The 92 also far outsold the big game 86.

[missionary5155]

Greetings
I would be looking at the throat diameter and the groove diameter right there at the chamber front. My 73 44WCF is a 2nd model that is fatter there than out to the muzzle. Your 160 grainer is a very short boolit and may be getting some what battered and torn trying to grip in those first few moments of acceleration.
If you want to find the real accuracy capability of that fine old rifle load up 5 of those 200 grainers cast of a soft lead (40-1 is my go to) on top of a case of 3F with a cereal box wad over the powder. You will need to have those soft boolits near the chamber area groove but not over. In old BP rifles you will be hard pressed to get a smokeless load to beat BP accuracy.
When I latch on to a BP era rifle first is a take apart cleaning and the chamber area diameters. Then the rest of the groove which is always smaller. Then a normal weight for caliber soft 40-1 boolit properly sized sitting over BP. Has never failed to enlighten me as to what that old barrel can do.
Mike in Peru

[Four Fingers of Death]

My friend went into a country store many moons ago that was closing down and they had a clearance sale outside. There was an old guy in a wheelchair and a young woman in the shop. He could see her kids playing at a table out back. The old guy was talking to another local off to the side. Everything was pretty much sold and my friend asked if there were any rifles left. The young woman went out the back and came back dusting off an old box. The box contained a new Model700 Remington BLR in 222. She laid it on the counter and asked how much. She looked at the box and said it is $50 (I can't remember what he paid). They were selling for around $400 at the time. My mate didn't want to rob anyone and said for her to check the price as they were a lot dearer than that. She spoke to the old guy who said that he could have it for that price as it was the last rifle he was going to sell after fifty years running the shop and he had done well out of it and was happy that an honest guy ended up with it.

After the sale was complete, my mate walked down the road to a cafe' and bought them a tray of sandwiches and cakes and some drinks for the kids as a way of saying thank you.

He still has the 222 some thirty years later and will never part with it.

[northmn]

No doubt he knew his own outhouse better than we do. The 73 certainly stayed in production long after the 92 did the same pistol-cartridge job, so somebody must have liked it. The 92 also far outsold the big game 86.

You would have to appreciate the North woods of Minnesota at that time. Many of these old timers had a "casual" acquaintance with game laws and tended to eat a lot of venison and an occasional moose. Game wardens tended to be a bit more understanding in those times also. Rifles were taken almost everywhere as something might pop up that they wanted to shoot. Winchester had loads for the 92 in 44-40 that were not to be shot in pistols or 73's but were dropped as many could not understand that concept. The big game 86 was kind of a dying proposition due to the introduction of the 94, a much lighter handier rifle and the 30-30 which had more range than the 86 offerings. There was also the 95 offered in more modern cartridges.
Also the 44-40 was not a pistol cartridge as such. Winchester introduced it in the 73 and Colt marketed the rifle/pistol concept. Winchester did some modification of the rounds as the first ones tended to jam in pistols due to the taper. That concept kind of died off until Ruger introduced their 44 mag SA. Marlin then started to make rifles in pistol cartridges also. Cowboy shooting really brought it back.

DP

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Well yes. I had inside plumbing, and the most I ever got from my bathroom window were pheasants.

I know the .44-40 originated with the need for a better rifle round than the .44 Henry used in the Winchester 66, and referred to it as a pistol round on the basis of size and its frequent use as such. Winchester actually did a mild and partial euthanasia job on the 1886, since for a few years they marketed high velocity smokeless loads which very closely resembled the maximum handloaders can sensibly achieve nowadays. But then they discontinued them, and their warnings against smokeless handloading became more severe. I think they wanted to sell more 94s.

[northmn]

The main reason quoted for Winchester dropping the HV rounds in 44-40, 38-40, 32-20 and 25-20 according to most is that they were not suitable for the revolvers and the 73 Winchesters that originated in black powder times. They were designated for the 92 Winchester but some still tried to use them in revolvers and the 73. I would guess some of the earlier Colt revolvers may not have stood up to them well. Also WWII saw an end to many of these older cartridges and rifles. Companies had to tool up for the war effort and did not bother reintroducing many of the old favorites.
While it is not something that I really get all excited about, there are differences besides performance between a pistol round and rifle round. The 45 Colt was not made in rifles until the emergence of the Cowboy shooting games. It had too small a rim, especially in BP days and was straight cased as were most pistol rounds. It also offered a smaller ballistic gain in rifles. The 44-40 actually caused problems in revolvers because it was tapered and slightly bottle necked. A tapered design is rifle cartridges was ideal as it assisted in extraction, especially in single shots where the cartridge was removed by the fingers. It also sealed the bore and prevented blow back into the face. I shot a Rossi in 45 Colt once where the loads used were spitting in my face. I read later that one wanted to use a little hotter loads to prevent this. Tapered cases also tended to set back in revolvers and sometimes jam them, worst offender was the 22 Jet. If you look at Colts offerings designed for pistols they were mostly straight cased.
The 1886 Winchester for all intents and purposes became the 1871 in 348. It was the same basic action slightly modified for higher pressure rounds.

DP

[cajun shooter]

I have shot the 44wcf cartridge since 1971 and I have owned several revolvers and rifles in this caliber. I have never had one incident of problems because of the cartridge design.
I would like to know where you found the information source on this cartridge causing problems in revolvers. It has been my experience that if anything, it's a very good cartridge to shoot and own. Later David

[Four Fingers of Death]

Crushing necks during reloading is the only trouble I've had loading for three rifles and two Colt clones over the years, but I never tried to hot rod it.

[Outpost75]

I have shot the 44wcf cartridge since 1971 and I have owned several revolvers and rifles in this caliber. I have never had one incident of problems because of the cartridge design. I would like to know where you found the information source on this cartridge causing problems in revolvers. It has been my experience that if anything, it's a very good cartridge to shoot and own. Later David

David,

You are correct. I think people repeat mythology and folklore they hear, written by people who do most of their shooting with the typewriter or keyboard. I came to the .44-40 late in life and have been led down the path of True Believers by folks like you, Savvy Jack and John Kort, and it has been quite an education.

Had the US Army had the foresight to adopt the 1873 musket, saddle ring carbine and the Colt revolver all using the .44-40 cartridge, instead of the danged trapdoor I wonder....

[northmn]

The information was probably in an article by Mike Venturino concerning the setback issues. I will also point out that that was an early problem that Winchester addressed with a redesign of their cases and was more or less remedied. Venturino is a very large fan of the 44-40 revolvers and has written several articles on loading them. The 44-40 revolver I had offered no problems either. I do not remember the exact cure, but wonder if it is not tied in to the current bottleneck design. I was basically pointing out the basic design differences between the early rifle and pistol cartridges. I did read or hear a rumor that the reason Colt did not continue with the 25-20 in pistols was that it also caused problems of that nature??

DP

[northmn]

Another point as to a difference in rifle vs pistol cartridges. With black powder the bullet/powder ratio was out of balance in the 44-40. Other pistol cartridges of the time used heavier bullets and less powder. The 44 Russian was considered an excellent pistol cartridge and used I believe 28 grains of BP under a 246 grain bullet. The 45 Colt (which the Army did adopt) used 40 grains of powder but a 250 grain bullet. The 45 Schofield was loaded similar to the Russian. With black powder, heavier bullets gave a little better burn in a revolver and if you look at the differences in velocity between the BP loads, the 45 Colt was at about 910 fps and the 44-40 very close but with a lighter 200 bullet. there would be more fouling with the 44-40 also. In a rifle the 44-40 was kind of like the later "Express" cartridges in the 86 Winchester. Black Powder offered different problems than the modern cowboy shooters encounter with their combos and smokeless. My "cowboy" combination has been a 45 Colt revolver and a 45-70 Remington Rolling Block. I would rather not talk about the 50-90 that was made a little too light weight. I still question if the rifle/pistol interchangeability thing was as popular as some think. There were a lot of single shot rifles used back then that were not adapted to pistols.

DP

[missionary5155]

David,

Had the US Army had the foresight to adopt the 1873 musket, saddle ring carbine and the Colt revolver all using the .44-40 cartridge, instead of the danged trapdoor I wonder....

Greetings
Another 44WCF shooter and happy owner of numerous.
The Army was faced with a condition out west that demanded the capability to shoot through the mount and eliminate the rider hanging off the off side neck of the horses used by the finest light cavalry our troopers had yet to face. Volley fire was well used by the infantry and dismounted horse troopers. The excellent penetration of the caliber .45 slugs well substantiated the caliber 45-70 decision. A suggested option put forward was to equip half the troops with the fine lever actions of Winchester. But again the Army had already dealt with under powered carbines (Spencers and others) at long distance shooting. Resupply of multi cartridges was not desired. One basic cartridge for all became the route and thinking in the Army.
Some generals were afraid the troops would fire too many rounds to fast wasting ammo. Then there was the further issue of wanting to keep rifle production at the Army controlled Springfield Arsenal. That was a cushy job all Ordinance Officers (who made the equipment decisions) hoped to one day command. Power, money and influence in big buisness was well rooted within our military. Imagine The troops knowing that the good 1876 in 45-75 was available then later the Marlin 1881 in the same 45-70 the Army already used.
So our troopers carried on with a good single shot rifle.
Very happily the Army made the excellent choice of adopting the caliber .45 revolvers for close quarters fighting.
Mike in Peru

[Four Fingers of Death]

One thing that rears it's head frequently in military purchases and tactics, is the fact that the guys making the decisions, did their fighting 20 -30 years in the past. This is less of an issue nowadays, but was a great issue in days of yore, especially as the game was changing regularly. The old guard would have been carrying big bore muskets when they were young men and this mentality would have influenced their decisions. A recent example of this was the transition from the 7.62 to the 5.56. There was a whole heap of angst about this, but generally military accept that the 5.56 is the go now.