.44-40 Vaquero/BH

[MtGun44]

Does anybody know what Ruger thinks is the right groove diameter for a their .44-40 pistols?
I have heard rumors that they just run .44 Spl/Mag barrels with .429 groove diam instead of
the proper diam of .427 as the original spec were. If they are doing .429, then what throats
are they running?

I know there was a recent thread on a .44-40 that wouldn't chamber a round loaded with
a big enough boolit to fit the .430 or .431 (I forget) throats.

Thinking about a .44-40 but would like to get a proper .427 groove diam gun with something like .428
throats.

Is this a situation like the .45 LC where the old groove diam was .454 and after WW2 it
got switched to .452 and has stayed there?

Thanks.

Bill

[Bodydoc447]

I have never had a Ruger .44 WCF. When I was active in CAS, a lot of discussion about this issue seemed to indicate that the chambers were tight and the barrels were the same .429" diameter. Please take this with a grain of salt as I have never had a .44 WCF Vaquero. I do however have three of their .38 WCF/.40 S&W Vaqueros and they did suffer from tight chambers (with standard barrel dimensions) and needed the throats to be redone. While it was a pain in the south 40, it was well worth it. They are amongst my favorite revolvers.

Hopefully, someone with firsthand experience can offer some insight.

Doc

[Larry Gibson]

My 57 series older model Vaquero with 7 1/2" barrel slugs out at .429 groove diameter and pins out at .417 bore diameter. All the chamber throats pin out at .429. I size the 429-200-RF and TL 430-240-SWC at .430. Must be why it shoots so good. I use newer RCBS dies and WW cases.

Larry Gibson

[MtGun44]

Thanks Larry, sounds great. I guess if I get newer dimensioned dies it should be OK.
Looks like the .427 groove "standard" for .44-40 has gone the way of the .454 "standard"
groove for .45 LC.

Bill

[rintinglen]

My S&W 544 has a .428 bore, so the .427 is sort of historic. A Cimmaron that I measured also had a .428 bore and .428-ish throats, but I have yet to actually lay hands on a Ruger 44-40, so I can't truthfully help. An older Colt that I measured had a .425 bore with cylinder throats all over the place from.427 to .429.

[RedneckRob]

I had a SS Vaq. that was dead nuts on with .430 pushed by Unique. The barrel was .429 as was the throats.

[Harry O]

I have two of the Ruger Old-Vaquero 44-40's and the "rumors" about mismatched dimensions are true. I bought them in the early 1990's when they first came out. The chambers were snug (which meant that no bullet larger than 0.427" will chamber). The throat of the cylinder was 0.424". The barrel was 0.430". It had absolutely NO accuracy with either lead or jacketed bullets. The bullet had to squeeze down from 0.427" to 0.424" and then expand up to 0.430" within a couple of bullet lengths. It did not work. I am talking 6" to 9" groups from a sandbag rest at 15 yards.

I sent one of them back to Ruger and asked for them to fix it. They replaced the cylinder with a different one that had essentially the same dimensions. I sent it back again with the explicit measured dimensions and asked them to make it consistent. They did nothing and sent me back a nasty note that said that they were made within industry tolerances and if I wanted something different, I should go to a "custom gunsmith". I never bothered to send the second one back.

I did go to a "custom gunsmith". We discussed the various options. Reaming out the cylinder throat to match the barrel was cheap enough so I did that. Opening up the chambers so that a 0.430" bullet could be used was more expensive. Replacing the barrel with a 0.427" one was even more expensive.

I now use soft cast 0.427" lead bullets with small amounts of Bullseye to bump the bullet up. The accuracy is not great, but the groups are 1/3 the size of what they were when I first got them (2" to 3" groups). If I knew what I do now, I would have never bought the Rugers. What you do is up to you to decide.

After this fiasco, I bought a couple of 38-40 Uberti SAA clones. The dimensions were correct and they were accurate from the start.

[KCSO]

I have had to ream out three ruger's so far in the 44-40. In all of them the throats were 427 428 and the barrels were 429. In each case the accuracy was decidely improved after the throats were reamed to 430.

[frank505]

JUst replace the 44/40 cylinder with a 44 magnum cylinder available from about any custom revolver smith. The one we measured was a .430 groove, replaced the cylinder and presto!!! a useful sixgun.

[Harry O]

I have had to ream out three ruger's so far in the 44-40. In all of them the throats were 427 428 and the barrels were 429. In each case the accuracy was decidely improved after the throats were reamed to 430.

I have heard (at CAS) that later Ruger Old-Style Vaquero's in 44-40 had the cylinder throats enlarged after there were enough complaints. However, they still kept the snug chambers (so that .427" bullets had to be used) and 0.430" barrel. I don't have one of those, so I don't know if that is true.

If it is true, though, Ruger still only half-a** fixed it. There is absolutely no reason nowadays that they cannot machine the guns to the correct dimensions. It is no longer a mystery on what it takes to get a good shooting gun. They have no excuse for what they did --- and they have even less excuse for refusing to make it right.

[MtGun44]

Not looking for "a useful sixgun", I have a safe full of them. I was toying with getting a new
cartridge - .44-40 and considering which brand might have the best likelihood of proper
dimensions on this ancient cartridge with "drifty" dimensional standards.

Thanks for the info, LL.

Bill

[dmize]

Apparently I have one of the "corrected" ones. 430 cylinder throats and 429 barrel. It has chambered and shot thousands of rounds of 44-40 brass loaded with 430 cast bullets.
To the best of my limited knowledge if you want a true 44-40 i.e 427 diameter bullets you will probably be looking for an Uberti.

[MtGun44]

dmize,

Please tell me the model and approximate manufacturing year of your pistol.

BH or Vaq or New Vaq, and recent or old - and how recent or old?

Oh, rats. Ruger does not list .44-40 for ANY of their guns now, so this becomes
a used gun hunt.

Thanks.

Bill

[Harry O]

MtGun44: Several different people here have had personal experience with the Ruger 44-40 Vaquero and quoted the dimensions on them. Some said the dimensions they had were a little better than some others had. However, I don't remember seeing ANYONE say that the one they had was made to the correct dimensions. Everyone seems to agree that they were NOT made to the correct dimensions and agreement on a gunboard is a rare thing.

If you are looking for a fake .44 Magnum in a weaker 44-40 case, an expensive case that will fail early because it is thin and because of excessive working, the Ruger might be what you are looking for.

I don't know if Uberti has correct 44-40 dimensions, but judging from my experience with their 38-40's, I think you would have a better chance of getting correct dimensions from them than you would with a Ruger.

[9.3X62AL]

Bill, I bought a NIB Uberti Cattleman x 4-3/4" in late 2012. Throats are all .429", grooves are probably .4285 " or thereabouts from what my micrometer showed. SAECO #446 sized at .429" shoots GREAT from 750 to almost 1000 FPS, zero leading using Trail Boss, Unique, 2400, and RL-7; both W-W and Starline brass chamber correctly and have plenty of space for boolit release @ .429". At 875-900 FPS, these boolits go right where the sights look. I couldn't be happier with this revolver, and have about 900 rounds through it without a problem. Nicely enough, the .429" boolits and loads that do so well in my original '73 carbine perform well in the sideiron. I don't know if Starline brass is any thicker than the W-W, but it is noticeably stronger/stiffer. W-W 44-40 brass will kink and warp if stared at intently, and R-P does likewise.

I've only seen one Ruger Vaquero in 44-40, and its owner wasn't happyy--it too was "built backwards", IIRC .430" grooves and .426"-.427" throats. Its owner was the source of my comment in another thread that Vaqueros in 44-40 had this reputation, and I recall posts here and elsewhere to this same effect. After my buddy's 44-40 Ruger experience and my own Built Backwards Bisley Bullsquat in 45 Colt, I steered clear of the make for some years. Nicely enough, a vintage 2003 Blackhawk in 41 Magnum and an early 2012 BH in 30 Carbine were dimensioned PERFECTLY, so Ruger does pay at least some attention to E-mail, return anomalies, or Internet commentary. I wouldn't (and didn't) roll the bones on a Vaquero in 44-40. I did give some thought to getting a Bisley in 44 Magnum and having a spare 44 Magnum cylinder opened to 44-40 WCF; per the SAAMI specs, it should be do-able. The Uberti's acquisition delayed the need to go that route.

[MtGun44]

Al,

Thanks for the excellent commentary. I am more and more considering the Uberti. Sounds like they
have done it right. I really appreciate you taking the time to comment.

A side note for you - I finally located two original 360XXX Lyman/Ideal molds to support my old
Colt Police Positive .38 S&W that I repaired. Adjusted the timing and made a shim to take out the
excessive end shake. I got the 360246 158 RN to group from 1-2" at 20-25 yds for 5 shots now.
Looks like 3.2 Unique (Lyman's starting load) works very well. Still will try some other charges,
but not trying to push the old girl - born in about 1922, IIRC. I know you have one like it and
thought you'd appreciate that she is back in business and accurate.

Bill

[9.3X62AL]

That IS good to hear about the PP! #358477 (150 SWC) atop 3.0 grains of Unique gives about 725 FPS, and goes where the sights look. No need to push the 38 S&W any harder than we are doing, with the 38 Specials and 357s on hand to go harder with.

Before having the BisHawk in 45, I had a Cattleman x 4-3/4" in 45 Colt. NEVER should have sold that one--it too was nicely-dimensioned and very tractable, but in those days with kids being raised I couldn't justify more than one "toy" gun in a "toy" caliber. Probably should have sold off the Ruger, though once I finished building it--the revolver redeemed itself.

[Lloyd Smale]

i just took my cylinder and opened it up to 430 and shoot the same bullets as I do with the 44 mag cylinder.

[9.3X62AL]

i just took my cylinder and opened it up to 430 and shoot the same bullets as I do with the 44 mag cylinder.

In most cases, that is probably the first--best--and most effective step to resolve such an issue. Complications arise if the "neck" portion of the case's chamber isn't large enough to accept the loaded case with a boolit that wide, or provide enough clearance to enable "clean" boolit release upon firing. That buddy of mine I spoke of had all the above issues, and ultimately sent the cylinder off somewhere to have those dimensions corrected--along with some dummy cartridges to guide the machinist's explorations. This owner became conversant in the Rugers Built Backwards subject matter, and his fervor for the subject was palpable. I tried when possible to steer him onto less controversial subjects at work, lest the briefing room or office walls threaten to combust. Once the cylinder was returned and performance was normalized, the revolver turned into a very usable and tractable tool; he became his previously pleasant self, too. But like my BisHawk, his revolver came in kit form--and the buyer had to finish building it. I don't know what Ruger was thinking about through the 1990s with their single-action revolver dimensioning in these calibers, but it resembled nothing learned in the prior 150+ years of revolver technology--and they got resentful and cross when questioned on the subject. I'm glad that dark era seems to be in remission.

[MtGun44]

I think the issue with Ruger is that they ONLY think in terms of Jbullets. Those dimensions will probably
work OK with Jbullets.

Back to the PP, I had limited success with 358477, my molds won't go quite large enough. But the old
"360xxx" molds did just fine.

As to "making a fake .44 Magnum" - gimme a break! I have plenty of .44 Mags - look at my handle
and avatar, for gosh sakes!

I have zero need or interest in hotrodding old cartridges beyond their designs. Rarely did that when I was young and
ignorant and those days are long gone, along with some of the ignorance. Just interested in playing with a new/old cartridge.

Bill

[9.3X62AL]

My thoughts on the 44-40 conversion from a 44 Magnum or Special cylinder......if Ruger was going to oblige me to re-cut the chambers to accomodate a mainstream 44 caliber barrel's dimensions AND clean up an undersized chamber anyway, I would just short-circuit the disappointment--start with a 44 Mag in factory form--and adapt a 2nd cylinder as a swapper. I would not have run loads past my current levels, since the idea was to have a matching sidearm for the '73 in 44-40. It would be convenient to have a revolver capable of sharing High Velocity 44-40 ammo with a Marlin 94 or Winchester 92 of this caliber, but as stated the Uberti find caused this idea to fade from prominence. I already have to use care in keeping high-velocity 32-20 ammo for my Marlin OUT OF AND AWAY FROM my revolvers in 32-20......why complicate things more than is absolutely necessary? And no law requires anyone to run all loads to the platform's strength limit "just because".

[azrednek]

I think the issue with Ruger is that they ONLY think in terms of Jbullets.

Bill

That is absolutely correct as I found out. I was gifted a 45 ACP/Colt revolver. The cylinder's throats varied considerably with both cylinders but all were under sized. Taking advantage of the last NRA Convention in Phoenix. I approached a Ruger rep about the problem and asked if they would fix it. I got a very polite "no". The rep told me Ruger would only test it with jacketed factory ammo. If the results met Ruger's specs it would simply be returned to me. The rep closed by saying and I para phrasing. "Know how you feel I used to be a lead slinger".

The 45's bore slugs a perfect .452. After board member JimInPhx fixed the cylinder for me, it was a night vs day improvement with shot to shot accuracy. I might also add while we are on this subject. My old 3-screw 357/9MM convertible. The bore measures .356, perfect size for both.