Alloy for BP loads in .44-40 Uberti Henry

[John in PA]

I usually use 5% tin/95% lead for black powder cartridge loads, and I've been using that in the Uberti Henry .44-40 for years with reasonable accuracy. Is there any reason to try a very hard alloy like Lyman #2 with black powder and plain base bullets? I just wonder how the Uberti .44 rifling likes hard cast.

[Don McDowell]

It won't hurt anything. At the price of #2 alloy, staying with 20-1 or 16-1 will save a bit of money if you shoot a lot.

[Chill Wills]

It will all depend on how well the bullet you have fits the rifle/chamber. Given it is Large enough in the right places, a hard- inexpensive alloy may work well. Many times a cheap supply of hard scrap lead and the correct mould work fine for these old rounds. Again, the right bullet fit is king!

[Outpost75]

With black powder, SOFTER is BETTER!

Pure lead works fine at BP velocities. If you want better fill out 1:75 tin lead works well.
Many BP shooters use 1:40, there is no need to go harder than 1:30 or 10BHN with black powder.

[Chill Wills]

With black powder, SOFTER is BETTER!


I absolutely do not think that is true. Prove the opposite all the time.
Soft can be great. So can hard. Fit is king.
The "only use soft lead alloy with BP" wife's tail needs to be put to bed.

There are a lot of right ways to do something.

[Knarley]

If it's for cowboy action, I been using wheel weights for years......... 45 Colt. Can't see where 44-40 would be too much different.
The soft lead is more for C & B revolvers and / or muzzle loaders.

Knarley

[country gent]

The barrels bore and rifling may determine more than the cartridge or black powder being used. Some rifling form grip bullets seal better than others. A rough bore or very smooth bore any have an effect. I do agree with the above that fit is most important aspect of the load. You can experiment and prove to yoursel whats what. Sometime a little experimenting is good.

[Don McDowell]

I shoot an ancient Marlin in 38 wcf, it absolutely thrives on bullets cast from 16-1 using the mould on an original Ideal loading tool, and 2f blackpowder.. Interesting thing this business about blackpowder needing soft lead, the US Army spec'ld 16-1 as the alloy for the trapdoors, and 20-1 for the Colt and Smith and Wesson service revolvers in 45 caliber,, 1878 Winchester lists quite a few cartridges they sell with bullets as hard as 11-1..

[9.3X62AL]

Fit seems to be paramount for me, The Holy Black or the Smokeless Pretender being the fuel doesn't matter a whole lot. Both fuels have differing needs to enhance their performances, but one rubric has held true for me.......any antimony in any significant amount in an alloy used for a black powder application won't work very well. My cap & ball revolver stuff got done with genuine 3F and pure lead, my front-stuffers use 2F or 3F THB and pure lead. BP cartridge so far has gotten done in 44-40 and 45-70 using 30/1 lead/tin, 3F in 44-40 and 2F in 45-70. I may or may not add the 38-55 to the BPC schedule this summer. I'm shooting enough BP cartridge to almost justify a 3rd Lyman 450/4500 filled with BP-specific lube.

Sufficient lube made a HUGE difference in my original '73 Winchester in 44-40 with BP loads. I did away with Goex Flaming Dirt and compressed 37 grains of Swiss 3F about 1/16" under SAECO #446 with groove filled with SPG. I got 25 rounds of accuracy before things got gritty and crummy, so now I wipe the bore after 20 rounds and can shoot 150 rounds without further interruption following that regimen.

[w30wcf]

"Softer Is Better" is the reason that Winchester and UMC used pure lead bullets in the .44-40. They did use lead / tin mixes in other calibers that required heavier, higher sectional density bullets (ex. .45-70). Back in those days, bores could vary a bit in diameter and if the bullet was too hard, it would not upset to give accurate shooting. I know that from my experience with an original '73 Winchester which has an oversized barrel.

If one has a bullet that does fit the barrel, the bullet hardness becomes less of a factor, but I will say that in my numerous experiences with testing b.p. in the .44-40, harder bullets have not bettered the accuracy that softer bullets have produced. :D

w30wcf

[Lead pot]

The ROT in the barrel and how fast you push that bullet has a lot to do with how soft your alloy will work. The old rifles that shot hand gun twist bores and shooting revolver sized bullets will get by shooting very soft bullets. In reality it's not the lead that smears the bore, it's the tin that does the dirty work unless you push the bullet too hard that it strips in a fast twist bore. Also a hard undersized bullet that does not fill the grooves and lets the gas bypass.

[iron mule]

it can be either depends on the gun and what your intended use for it is
if you need expansion then soft would be best //if this works
if just for plinking and you are not going for target type accuracy then use what you have
but no matter what you use size to fit the gun
mule

[Don McDowell]

All a person needs to do to start questioning and seriously questioning this "softer is better because it bumps up better" stuff is to dive into shooting paper patch bullets, and then try and figure out why a bullet patched to bore diameter will shoot better at long range when cast from 16-1 than it does from something softer....

[John in PA]

Yeah, my original question was specifically pertaining to the Uberti .44-40 rifle barrels, since their '73 and Henry use the same rifling and bore specs. And these are N-SSA match loads, where the 10 ring is around an inch at 50 yards, not cowboy action stuff with dinner plates at spitting distance. This gun needs to shoot an inch or under at 50 yards benched to be competitive. Then the only thing I can blame for poor offhand scores is me.

[9.3X62AL]

One inch at 50 yards might be a little better than many leverguns can do. My '73 Winchester in 44-40's best work at 100 yards is about 2.5", black powder or smokeless. From what I've gathered reading here and elsewhere, this is typical of the system.

[Don McDowell]

Yeah, my original question was specifically pertaining to the Uberti .44-40 rifle barrels, since their '73 and Henry use the same rifling and bore specs. And these are N-SSA match loads, where the 10 ring is around an inch at 50 yards, not cowboy action stuff with dinner plates at spitting distance. This gun needs to shoot an inch or under at 50 yards benched to be competitive. Then the only thing I can blame for poor offhand scores is me.

The answer is still the same, harder alloys won't hurt anything, bullet fit and a good lube being the first things to worry about.

[w30wcf]

I usually use 5% tin/95% lead for black powder cartridge loads, and I've been using that in the Uberti Henry .44-40 for years with reasonable accuracy. Is there any reason to try a very hard alloy like Lyman #2 with black powder and plain base bullets? I just wonder how the Uberti .44 rifling likes hard cast.

John,
In my opinion, 20/1 would work just fine. :D I have tried bullets as hard as 16 BHN in the .44-40 (Marlin Cowboy Rifle) with b.p. and found, on average, that bullets in the 8-11 BHN range produced groups that were about 20% tighter.

w30wcf

[w30wcf]

John,
Here's a couple of examples of softer bullets and b.p. in the .44-40.
Outpost75 had sent me some samples of his Accurate 43-230E in 30/1 alloy and I tried them at 50 yards with 2 different powders.....

1st 12 shots
http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o25/w30wcf/Leverguns/target%2043-230%2036%20KIK%203F.jpg

shots 13-17
http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o25/w30wcf/Leverguns/target%2043-230E%2036%20%20Goex%202F.jpg

w30wcf

[w30wcf]

John,
Here's the 43-215C at 200. 9 of the 10 shots are in 4" which would meet your accuracy criteria of 1" @ 50 yards.
The rifle was wearing a 4X scope at the time of the testing.

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o25/w30wcf/Leverguns/target%2043-215C%20%20200%20yards.jpg

w30wcf

[Outpost75]

That is some fine shooting, John!

My plan is to test some similar loads, but with Elephant powder I have, in my Microgroove 1894S and see how many rounds will hold group until it fouls out. I will also measure velocities in 5-1/2" and 7-1/2" Ruger Vaqueros, swapping same .44-40 cylinder in both guns, which works fine even though the guns were manufactured two years apart. Ain't computerized machining wonderful?

Would be nice to know what velocity you got with 43-230E, and to see if it carries up at longer ranges 200 yards+ better than 215C.

[w30wcf]

Ed,
I did not chronograph them but with the 43-215C, the average velocities were 1,206 fps (36 / Goex FFG) and 1,312 fps (36 / KIK FFFG).
Velocities with your 43-230E would be pretty close to those.

I would expect that, with a good b.p. lube (critical !!), there should be no foul out regardless of the type of rifling. 50+ rounds have been fired with standard Goex / SPG / 43-215F and there was no foul out with accuracy being maintained throughout. :D

w30wcf

[cajun shooter]

It's been my experience that bbl fit is first with lube following close behind. I shoot the 44wcf from a Taurus Interarms model 92 with .427 bore. I have shot many 50 round matches with no fouling. I've also had the same results with the Uberti 73 with a .427 bore. I size my 43-210 B bullets at .429 and use nothing but NASA lube. I use nothing but the Isotope cores for my bullet making. On my Cabine Tree they read in the 12 BHN area.
Uberti has a good reputation for keeping all barrel making in the correct sizes but they had some rifles that left the plant with barrel's that were at .429-.430 readings. They caught this and corrected the problem and started fitting the guns with the proper .427 size barrels.

w30wcf is a very good friend of mine and he has done tons of testing on the 44wcf cartridge. The one area where he and I don't agree is his use of the SPG lube and nothing else. I never had a problem with my bullet, the 43-210B using the NASA lube. Both of my 44WCF rifles are short 20 and 18 1/2 lengths. John's rifle has a 24 inch bbl and he always had fouling while shooting my bullet which is an improved design with larger and deeper lube grooves from the original 42798 bullet.
I sent John some NASA and he advised that he had a different result, I'll let him state what that was as I don't want to give information that I'm not sure about.
I think John's Accurate design, the 43-215C is a better all around design for the various 44WCF rifles than my original design. If you have a shorter barrel then my design will work fine with the NASA lube.
Let me say this before closing, I started shooting the different lubes with my BP loads, purchased and read Steve's book and even talked with him. He will be the first to tell you that SPG is not the final answer to all BP shooting.
John Kort has contributed more to the world of shooting the 44wcf than any other person I know and I have nothing but full respect for him. We just disagree on lube. Ha!! Ha!!
If any member is shooting BP and would like to try some NASA lube, contact me and I would be more than happy to send you a free sample. Take Care David

[9.3X62AL]

THAT is some really fine shooting, indeed!

[w30wcf]

Hi David,
I think the issue with NASA and the 43-215C bullet is that its tackiness allows it to hold onto the larger lube groove longer and thus the reason that the groups at 100 yards are about 2X bigger than those with the "not Tacky" SPG.

On the other hand it works great in standard 2 lube grooved b.p. bullets like your 43-210B and gives very good accuracy. :D

Al, Ed,
Thank you. It was the rifle and the solid bench rest that made it possible, along with the bullet and powder(s) combo.....

w30wcf

[cajun shooter]

John, I agree with you 100% on the fact of the NASA being tacky and may cause the type of problems you describe.
I have however not used straight NASA for quite sometime, I have added small amounts of Carnauba Flakes to my lube before pouring it up in sticks for my Star and Saeco sizers. I add 3 scoops of the flakes to every 4 ounces, using the Lee .7 powder scoop. The product becomes very easy to handle and use in my Louisiana climate. Take Care David

[THerbert]

Uberti has a good reputation for keeping all barrel making in the correct sizes but they had some rifles that left the plant with barrel's that were at .429-.430 readings. They caught this and corrected the problem and started fitting the guns with the proper .427 size barrels.

This statement interests me. I have 3 Uberti-made guns in .44-40. The first was a dual-cylinder .44 Mag/.44-40 SAA clone, purchased in 1989, imported by a company called Western Arms of Angleton, Texas. Predictably, since it was a .44 Mag, it has a .429" bore. This pistol has a top strap that is .100" thicker than a standard SAA, presumably to better withstand the stresses of shooting the .44 Mag cartridge. I very seldom shoot .44 Mag in it; its life has mostly been .44-40 and .44 Special.

When I started shooting SASS this year, I purchased a Stoeger-imported 1866. It, too has a .429" bore -- I just slugged and measured it, because your statement got me to wondering. This rifle was made in 2013 according to the proof marks.

The last is another Stoeger-imported SAA clone, with a standard-size frame. It has a .429" bore. It was made in 2014, according to the proof marks.

The thing is, although all of the guns have .429" bores, all three of the cylinders from the two SAA's had .427" chamber throats. I had to have them all opened up to .430", so that I wouldn't be swaging down the .430" bullets I load for all three guns.

Incidentally, Cajun, I lived in Denham Springs for about 20 months, from July of '76 to February of '78, and last went through there last July on the way to Atlanta to visit friends. It's now unrecognizable from I-12. Next time I go through there, I'll have to get off the freeway and look around.