how would the .44 rim fire stack up with todays ammo?

[Fox Creek Kid]

...And the Army surplussed the Schofields out pretty early. It looks to me like a grand total of only around 8,000 Shcofields were ever made...

Driftwood, the Military actually was trying to buy MORE Schofields from S&W but it was nixed by S&W. Two reasons are offered of which I personally believe to be true. S&W was developing their new DA model as many believed it was the future. Secondly, dealing with the U.S. gov't on any level is a pain as they are finicky and they pay poorly.  Another factor was that S&W had developed a fantastic world market and that the world wanted the new fangled "self cockers". The exact inverse of today's gun market in that at that time more money was to be made abroad.

Shotgun Franklin, then as now people detested reloading a percussion revolver as it was tediously slow, especially under siege by hostiles. Also, they were more susceptible to inclement weather & the military issued paper ctgs. and not "powder & ball" which was susceptible to dampness and many broke open due to primitive transportation, i.e., wagon.

[Shotgun Franklin]

I have read that in the very early days of cartridge ammo you could expect about 3 to 5 misfires per 50 but that level of failure was still much less than you'd get out of a percussion gun. In nearly every situation I can think of I'd rather have a 7 to 16 shot repeater than a single shot.

[Fox Creek Kid]

I have read that in the very early days of cartridge ammo you could expect about 3 to 5 misfires per 50 but that level of failure was still much less than you'd get out of a percussion gun...

Not necessarily.   A PROPERLY maintained & loaded cap 'n ball revolver is almost bulletproof (no pun intended  ). There are several primary historical accounts (one being about Wild Bill) whereas civilians, usually in hostile country, discharged their weapons every morning and carefully reloaded as to insure ignition every time. Naturally, this alerted the hostiles as to their location, but if they were travelling in a large & heavily armed group they usually had little to fear. This raises the dichotomy of whether it is better to discharge and alert the hostiles as to your presence but have a 100% functioning weapon or the inverse, i.e., risking damp charges so as not to alert the hostiles.

Needless to say, not having to discharge & reload to insure reliability was a huge advantage of self contained metallic cartridges.

[Shotgun Franklin]

Under ideal conditions it's possible to get close to 100% but not even at a match are cap&ball that reliable. I see'm drop out of stages all the time. I can only imagine trying to keep up with one in the field. That's why people who used their guns to stay alive immediately went to cartridge gun when they became available, even Wild Bill.

[Buck Stinson]

In answer to Driftwood Johnson's question.  I've never pulled the bullets from any of the early Frankfort Arsenal pistol ammunition.  As I said, my 20 round 1874 dated box is full and sealed.  The draw string has never been pulled.  I have two others in my collection of single rounds, but the value is such that I wouldn't want to pull either of them apart either.  I can tell you that the two single rounds as well as the 1874 dated box are all Benet primed copper cases.  One of the two single rounds is for the .45 Long Colt and the rim diameter is .503.  The other single round is the short version that was intended for both the S&W Schofield and the Colt Single Action,  The rim diameter on this one is .513.  I have several 1875 to 1880 vintage rounds with the WRACo. headstamp and the rim diameter on these is .499.  Hope this will be of interest.

[Fox Creek Kid]

...That's why people who used their guns to stay alive immediately went to cartridge gun when they became available, even Wild Bill.

When J.W. Hardin was captured in 1877 he was wearing an 1860 percussion Colt. I think he probably qualified as one of those who wanted to "stay alive immediately".    However, we're way off topic here anyway.

[MMA10mm]

Sorry to dredge up an old one, but there seems to be a lot of speculation here that facts can fix.

The 44 RF was designed in the late 50s to 1860, as it was the cartridge for the Henry (1860).  Remember that metal fabrication and materials were rudimentary, and a folded-head rim-fire case was but one of many weak cartridge designs.  The fact is the 22 and 44 RFs were the cheapest, easiest to make, reliable, and good-obturating designs of the time.  But the early copper cases (and the thin-ness required by their folded-head design) made them poor pressure vessels, and hence more inclination towards light loads (though, as pointed out, incrementally stronger than the rocket balls of the volcanic).

The other aspect is this incremental improvement.  Technologically, it's quite rare to have a major leap forward that skips steps.  Guns are no different.  The switch over from flintlock to percussion happened fairly quick, but the change from  smoothbore muskets to rifled rifles happened slower, and we can find all four permutations of these combinations in different countries/armies, especially in the 25 years before the US Civil War.  Self-contained ammunition is no different.  The Rocket-Ball was the beginning of the concept from a muzzle-loading point of view.  Then someone said, let's stick a percussion cap under the ball, and the 22 RF was born.  Then someone combined the rocket ball and 22RF and we got the 44 RF, but they also wanted more power.  With the restrictions of the types of cases involved as I described above, they avoided going too far (which is unsafe from a business point of view too - if it fails, you might go under for wasting too much capitol on a bad/non-recoverable/non-saleable idea), so you get the "weak" 44RF. 

To the folks in the 1860s and 70s who chose/preferred Henrys and 66s, 16 quick shots with quick reloading was a fair trade-off compared to having one shot that was more powerful.   

As to the original poster's question, I think we must remember that looking backwards from an era where we have 460 S&W and 500 S&W Magnums (or even just looking at the most popular magnum pistol, the 44 Mag.) or the 30-06, 338 Magnum, etc., yes, the 44 RF looked pathetically anemic.  It was, after all, designed and produced as a rifle round first and a pistol round secondarily (because Colt and S&W could see the market 10 years after the 44RF first emerged).  But let's look at it another way --

Not many in the personal defense field today snicker at or deride the 45ACP as a good cartridge.  Stick it in an SMG like a Thompson, and most people think the 45 is quite impressive as an offensive weapon...  Well, taking into consideration bore diameter, velocity, bullet weight, and rapidity of fire and reloading, it's not a far stretch to think of the 1860/1866 as the Thompson SMG of the old west.   That's the perspective I think one should take when looking at these rifles, because to the folks back then coming out of the muzzle-loading era, it's a similar technological advance.  Makes one feel a lot better about the 44 RF, doesn't it?    In a similar vein, the Trapdoor Springfield could be looked at as the M-1 Garand of the old west (because the Trapdoors reload-ability was that much of an improvement over muzzleloaders, it's similar in tactical improvement to the self-loading Garand over a bolt-action).  And, just as our military had Garands and Thompsons in WWII, for slightly different expected tactical needs of combat, the old west had single shots and repeaters, and which one you wanted depended on your beliefs/expectations of your tactical needs (taking away the two most common limitations on this choice - your finances and availability of the weapon).

So, if you'd respect the idea of the 45ACP or maybe the 40S&W as a "powerful" or effective cartridge today, I suggest you view the 44RF in an identical frame of reference.

[Coffinmaker]

We also must consider, the Henry was originally conceived as a military arm and as such, the very first iteration of the Assault Rifle.  Sales to civilians only became an option when the hierarchy of the military balked at such a quantum leap of technology.  Some, who controlled military decisions felt rapid loading arms would only result in wasted ammunition.

In an actual combat situation, very few casualties result at ranges exceeding 75 yards.  Studies have been done as to the number of rounds fired per casualty and the numbers are staggering.  In the 10s of thousands.  Hence the doctrine of Volume of Fire which begat modern assault weapons.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of a .44 Henry Flat nor it's Colt inspired close cousin at anything inside 100 yards.  Some closer for hand guns.  Those cartridges were originally conceived to be very effective on basically soft skinned (us) targets.  And they were.

Coffinmaker

PS:  I shoot a cartridge in my Henry rifles and Open Tops that closely duplicates the "old" load and it is a HOOT to load up 17 rounds and fire away.  Now, if someone would just write a 15 round stage ............

[Montana Slim]

Under ideal conditions it's possible to get close to 100% but not even at a match are cap&ball that reliable. I see'm drop out of stages all the time............

I must live a pure & charmed life as I've never had to hand one off in near 15 years of CAS/WAS...Don't get me wrong, I've had a hiccup or two...but have always gotten my rounds off under the clock 

Slim

[SGT John Chapman]

44 Russian is the obtainable round that most closely duplicates the 44 Henry,.....you would still have to make them yourself.....

Buck,.....I think if you look at your FA 45 Colts you have a 12 round box and not a 20,.....does it look like this?.....

[MMA10mm]

44 Russian is the obtainable round that most closely duplicates the 44 Henry,.....you would still have to make them yourself.....

Like Coffinmaker and Sgt. Chapman, I've converted to a modern-day, center-fire, reloadable simulation of the 44 Henry RF Flat, using the 44 Russian as the basis.  I looked into all the permutations and possibilities of other rounds, such as the 44 Colt & 44 Special.  The bottom line for me was that it was most-similar to the Henry to copy it's cartridge OAL, and make a slight sacrifice on the amount of powder that could be fitted into the case... 

Researching the 44 Henry RF can be complicated and confusing.  Barnes' Cartridges of the World does a fair job of sorting it out.  There were two versions of the cartridge, with slightly different case lengths.  I think this can also explain some of the variation one reads about in powder charges and bullet weights.  (You'll often read that the 44 Henry was loaded with from 26 to 28grs of powder and a 200 or 216gr bullet.)  I found a terrific RNFP bullet to case to simulate the original.  It's flat point is a little bigger than the originals, but it's close.  It weighs 208grs lubed and cast from 1:30 tin to lead, and it let's me match the OAL of the shorter 44 Henry round (which I believe is the older version of the two versions).  Unfortunately, with solid-head construction, the 44 Russian case combined with this bullet doesn't let me get as much powder in.  I load with 3f black powder to get as much as possible in, but it's still short of 26grs, by quite a piece...

No one (including me) can really tell or cares, because it IS close, and the smoke and flash are great, and the recoil differences in this weight of rifle are non-existent.  It's as good as we can get without getting someone to start making the originals again (which is highly unlikely, I'm afraid).

[Montana Slim]

Summarizing..two best bets are:

If you want to duplicate the Henry cartridge performance, I suggest the 44-40 downloaded to 28 grains of powder.
Easily done....& the 44-40 cartridge seals the chamber nicely, you won't have to deal with blow-back.

if you want to duplicate the appearance of the Henry cartridge, the .44 Russian case is close.

Slim

[Fox Creek Kid]

...If you want to duplicate the Henry cartridge performance, I suggest the 44-40 downloaded to 28 grains of powder.
Easily done....& the 44-40 cartridge seals the chamber nicely, you won't have to deal with blow-back...

That is what I do.

[MMA10mm]

Summarizing..two best bets are:

If you want to duplicate the Henry cartridge performance, I suggest the 44-40 downloaded to 28 grains of powder.
Easily done....& the 44-40 cartridge seals the chamber nicely, you won't have to deal with blow-back.

if you want to duplicate the appearance of the Henry cartridge, the .44 Russian case is close.

Slim

Yes, except, the "performance" aspect you refer to is it's external ballistics (which I think is the most-common interpretation/use of the word in the context of our discussion).  [But] If magazine capacity is a performance measurement (which it is to me, but not most CAS shooters, because of the 10-round loading limits), than that OAL measurement starts knawing at you (me) like a tooth-ache.... 

I began wondering if switching to 4f would allow me to get more weight in the restricted volume of the case.  I even thought about making a custom reamer to cut the head of the cases (on the inside) to convert modern solid-head 44 Russian cases into balloon-head cases, so a couple more grains of powder would fit inside.  (Then the little fairy popped up on my shoulder and asked just how obsessed I needed to be, since these weren't rimfires anyway?  So, I stopped, sat the cases down and went and had a beer.  )

I guess my overall response is just to clarify that there's more to using the Russian case in simulating the 44 RF than appearance.  There's another (lesser thought of) type of "performance," known as magazine capacity (which doesn't come into play in CAS, but matters to a historical-based shooter like me).

[SGT John Chapman]

http://www.cowboy45special.com/

Ok,.....Convert your elevator to function these and go for it,....call it 45 Henry,....look at the crate in my Henry picture real close,.......

[MMA10mm]

Sgt.,
I've seen your 45 Henry cartridge box before, and I love it!  True to the original, but honestly different.  Awesome!

I've already converted.  Got the carrier from Adirondack Jack a few years ago and got it in my 1866 Improved Henry over the Winter.  I load 44 Russian cases to same OAL as 44 Henry RF.  Your 45 version probably has a pinch more room in it due to diameter, but I'm guessing you still can't quite get to 26grs?  The original RF had a bullet diameter (heel-crimped) of around .445" IIRC, so I'm a little small @ .432" & your a little big @ .452",  but we're both close, and we can reload these things!     

Nice set-up.  I'm working on a civilian Scout/Chief of Indian Scouts persona, circa 1872-3, but I've done some Civil War re-enactg, and you've got a very nice set-up for your persona there. 

[Mako]

Like Coffinmaker and Sgt. Chapman, I've converted to a modern-day, center-fire, reloadable simulation of the 44 Henry RF Flat, using the 44 Russian as the basis.  I looked into all the permutations and possibilities of other rounds, such as the 44 Colt & 44 Special.  The bottom line for me was that it was most-similar to the Henry to copy it's cartridge OAL, and make a slight sacrifice on the amount of powder that could be fitted into the case...  

Researching the 44 Henry RF can be complicated and confusing.  Barnes' Cartridges of the World does a fair job of sorting it out.  There were two versions of the cartridge, with slightly different case lengths.  I think this can also explain some of the variation one reads about in powder charges and bullet weights.  (You'll often read that the 44 Henry was loaded with from 26 to 28grs of powder and a 200 or 216gr bullet.)  I found a terrific RNFP bullet to case to simulate the original.  It's flat point is a little bigger than the originals, but it's close.  It weighs 208grs lubed and cast from 1:30 tin to lead, and it let's me match the OAL of the shorter 44 Henry round (which I believe is the older version of the two versions).  Unfortunately, with solid-head construction, the 44 Russian case combined with this bullet doesn't let me get as much powder in.  I load with 3f black powder to get as much as possible in, but it's still short of 26grs, by quite a piece...

No one (including me) can really tell or cares, because it IS close, and the smoke and flash are great, and the recoil differences in this weight of rifle are non-existent.  It's as good as we can get without getting someone to start making the originals again (which is highly unlikely, I'm afraid).

MMA10mm,
Your primary problem is your bullet.  You are using an "inside the case"bullet instead of a heeled bullet.  You lose too much space to the bullet.
This is a section view from w44wcf:



As you can see it takes a .44 Colt case with the original .44 Colt Heeled Bullet to give you a similar capacity.  w44wcf informed me that is the original .44 Colt heeled bullet he shows in the .44 Colt case.  The powder volumes are almost identical between the Henry Rim Fire and the Central Fire Colt.  The heeled bullets just allow more powder in the case than the inside the case bullets we are familiar with today.

If you use an inside the case bullet and crimp it "correctly" then you have to use a .44 Spl. case to get the correct powder capacity.

I have two .44 Spl rifles (actually one is a carbine) one of them has a carrier just like you have and I use a Mav Dutchman over a case full of FFFg with a heavy compression.  But if I want to reproduce the load I use a .44 spl with a full case of FFFg.

This photo includes a sectioned .44 Spl with a 200gr bullet (not a Mav Dutchman).  And it has 28 grains of BP in it.



Note that the overall length of the .44 spl is just a bit longer than the overall length of the .44 Henry because it has less bullet sticking out of the case with its' modern internal  bullet.

The only way for you to get closer is to replicate the bullet shape where it sticks out of the case.  You could get a Custom mold cut by Bernie that would let you use an inside the case bullet, but with the lube groove(s) outside of the case, or perhaps one groove out and one in.  You also need a crimping groove behind the groove that is outside the case.  Then load it in a .44 Russian case and it would be close.

I'm assuming you are using this in your .44 Spl Carbine, the extra bullet sticking out of the case will have room because of the .44 spl chamber.

~Mako

[SGT John Chapman]

THis is the Hollow based Rapine Slug I use for my 45 Colts....

[MMA10mm]

MMA10mm,
Your primary problem is your bullet.  You are using an "inside the case"bullet instead of a heeled bullet.  You lose too much space to the bullet.

That's a really good point too Mako, and as I was reading your post I thought about the bullets I've pulled from 44 Webley ammo, and how large of a hollow base there was...  And then, the Sarge, like he's reading my mind posts his picture! 

The only way for you to get closer is to replicate the bullet shape where it sticks out of the case.  You could get a Custom mold cut by Bernie that would let you use an inside the case bullet, but with the lube groove(s) outside of the case, or perhaps one groove out and one in.  You also need a crimping groove behind the groove that is outside the case.  Then load it in a .44 Russian case and it would be close.

I'm assuming you are using this in your .44 Spl Carbine, the extra bullet sticking out of the case will have room because of the .44 spl chamber.

~Mako

Yes, I'm using a 66 in 44Spl., so with  the 44 Russian lifter conversion I have really long "throats." 

That's an interesting idea for a custom mould.  Might work it out in nose-pour configuration and set up a Cramer-style multiple-cavity hollowpointing rig, so I can make them hollow-base as well.  Ya got me head-scratchin' and thinking now...  Can't use MavDutchman lube grooves with a wide hollow-base, but that extra groove out front would help that.

What COAL are you loading 44 Russian-cased HenryRF simulations?  I'm guessing your using the longer version of the Henry ctrdg as your standard?

[Mako]

MMA10mm,
Chew on these for a while and we'll talk later. Even the .44 Special with a Mav Dutchman (200 gr.) you can't get 28 grains in.  I get about 26 with FFg by volume.  If you use a bullet with smaller lube grooves it is shorter and you can get 28 gains, but then you have to be careful about fouling.





Now these are the same cartridges but have the bottom of the bullets lined up so you can compare the capacity of the case after seating the bullets.



Note the .44 Colt is actually almost the same overall length with the Mav Dutchman Big lube® bullet.  There are several people who do this.  Long Johns Wolf and others.  I have done it and the .06" shorter OAL than the .44 Special works.  I did switch extractors to get a better bite.  If you look carefully you will see the .44 Colt case has a Ø.483 Rim unlike the .44 Russian and .44 Special which have a Ø.514 rim.

If you decided to have a custom mold made then think along these lines. To get enough lube you really need two grooves.  I show one above and one below:



~Mako