Doing research for my Cimarron Smith and Wesson No.3 American model, I had several realizations, based on research and anecdotal evidence.

One the .44 American was basically a center fire .44 Henry, since S&W's initial offering was in .44 Henry, and the Army wanted the cartridge to be changed to center fire.

Second, in the late 19th cntury, the ,44 S&W American and .44 Henry center Fire were used interchangeably in S&W Americans and the final 1866 version, the .44 Henry center Fire.

Third, .44 American would actually work in a 1860 .44 Colt conversion.  American Cartridge is only .01" smaller diameter than the .44 Colt, and the bullet of the American is only slightly more than .01' smaller than the .44  Colt bullet according to my measurements of the originals of both in my cartridge collections.  I tried .44 American's in my .44 Colt revolver, and they we just only the slightest bit looser than the .44 Colts.  I mean, like the thickness of a piece of printer paper looser!

Forth, Smith and Wesson's original designation was  just .44-100, and later called it .44 S&W.  At least one manufacturer produced the .44 American ammo under the label of ".44-100" saying it was also suitable for Colt's revolvers (I'm guessing 1860 Richards) and Winchester Rifles (1866 CF?)

My guess the .44 S&W would shoot reasonable from a Colt Conversion, the soft lead bullet obdurating into the .450" bore.  The American had a 218 grain bullet over 25 grains of powder, and the Colt was a 225 grain bullet over 26-27 grain black powder.  I would conjecture that in the vast stretches of the west, due the the proliferation of both Colt's conversions and S&W Americans (both in use with the Cavalry before 1874/5) S&W American ammo was used fairly often in Colt's conversions.  If a store keeper had limited ammo, a cartridge that could be used in both conversions and Americans (and later center fire 1866s) made sense.

We live in a world of computers, micrometers, CNC machines and 3d metal printing, nano science, and disposable everything. We order from Amazon. We like exact, and want things to be correct. We talk about magnumitus, and MOA at 25 yards for pistols.

In the 1869, they lived in a world of pen and paper, rulers, files, chisels, and lathes, and use it until i can't be repaired anymore.  For them then, if it something still works or was close, that was good enough. They ordered through the town's general store. They used anything that they had at hand, as long as it worked most of the time.

Common practice is to use .41 magnum brass (.435" case) for fabricating .44 Henry and 44 S&W (.440" case). XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Senior moment

Oh So True TL

Similarly, the silliness of Colt.  Colt refused to acknowledge their first "Cartridge" pistol was designed around a "Winchester" Cartridge.  Calling out "44 Henry Flat" just didn't sit well, so Colt released their own proprietary cartridge, the "45 Stetson."  Although the cartridge never really achieved popularity, just goes to show the silliness of some marketing stuff. 

Twaz some handy, the 44 Henry Flat was the prime cartridge for the Henry, then the New Henry Improved (1866) and the Colt Open Top.  All of which were/are Rim Fire.  This held true right up until Winchester released the 1866 in 44 Henry Central Fire (for export only).  Colt also produced the Colt SAA in 44 Henry Flat for those stalwarts whom still clung to the Henry and the 1866 Rifles.  Although extended research will show the "Stetson" cartridge was originally developed at Winchester.  Go figure.

  Yepper TL

Although I am also a Proponent of using the Cowboy 45 Special case in the Henry, the 1866 and the '71/72 Open Top to mime the 44 Henry Flat combinations.  I also utilize 44 Russian cases, in both my 1866 Rifle (44 Spl) my newly built 1873 Trapper in 44 Special and my Open Tops when fit with .44 Colt Cylinders/Barrels.

An interesting tid bit; the 44 Henry Flat was a commercial loading well into the 1930s.  I did once run into an original box of 44 Henry Flat, from the 1870s, but the price was horrendous to say the least.

I was, at one time, tempted to copy a Central Fire 1866 I had access to, but since Winchester never converted the Henrys to Central, I gave it up.

The early years of cartridge arms was an experimental period. It's interesting to follow the progression from those early cartridges to the more accepted ones that became the standard of the industry for longer periods.

I have to say I was astounded when I dropped the .44 S&W in the .44 Colt chamber, and it barely wiggled!  I have had .38 Specials that were that loose in older revolvers. It was tighter than the .41 magnum case by a lot.  That's what caused me to look up the specs of 44 RF/S&W to .41 Mag. That, along with the fact that lots of 1860 LCCs (Long Cylinder Conversions) were converted to .44 Henry, even though the 1860 bore was .450".  They seemed to shoot well enough that it was a common conversion for many years.

I also found that the Army used 1863 and 1872 pattern holster for both Richards and Americans. The 183 was made to fit 1851 and 1860 Colts and NMA (1858) Remingtons, and did fit both American and Richards.  The 1872 was purpose built with those two in mind, since the Colt SAA 1873 wan't on the horizon yet, and was not common until 1874 ad 1875 with the troops, with many Americans and Richards still being used after that.

Soft lead bullets do work well in looser bores. I can see how close enough was good in those early calibers.

At black powder pressures i bet the thinking of the time was, if it chambers and goes bang you were golden. Wouldn't be surprised is some guns never saw the cartridges they were originally chambered in. Especially when looking at the smaller 38 and 32s with their short, long, long colt, rim, center, long rim, long center fire, extra long monikers.

I think I remember hearing the 44 remington and 44 colt were interchangeable on a case by case basis as was the 44 rimfire in some loadings in the open top. I bet folks took their guns with them when buying shells often in the early cartridge era. And imagine natives trying to figure all this stuff out 

S&W did not mark their Americans as far as caliber!  While a buyer with a .44 S&W one could not fire a ,44 Russian, I would bet more than a few Russian ones were firing .44 S&W in them.  While the largest diameter of the .44 S&W bullet was a bit too big, the soft lead, and the sharp ogive and the rebated heel would allow it to swedge down the barrel.

Quote from: Tuolumne Lawman on September 01, 2024, 10:02:07 AMWe live in a world of computers, micrometers, CNC machines and 3d metal printing, nano science, and disposable everything. We order from Amazon. We like exact, and want things to be correct. We talk about magnumitus, and MOA at 25 yards for pistols.

In the 1869, they lived in a world of pen and paper, rulers, files, chisels, and lathes, and use it until i can't be repaired anymore.  For them then, if it something still works or was close, that was good enough. They ordered through the town's general store. They used anything that they had at hand, as long as it worked most of the time.

Very well said.

  Well

As additional grist for the mill, soft lead bullets actually don't "Obturate" to bore diameter.  They just cock a little and go down the bore kattywumpus.  At that point in time, a Handgun wasn't a precision long range instrument.  Up close and personal as a "last ditch" defense or settling differences was more like it.  A key holing bullet at 10 feet was certainly quite effective.  "Minute of Chest" would be considered fine accuracy.  Maybe.

This in really interesting.  All the literature says the .44 S&W American is a .440" case and the bulletin .432".  WELL I have a dozen original rounds of .44 S&W of assorted manufacturers, and ALL have bullet of .440" to .449", as wellas the case diameter of .440".  The rebated heel inside the case may be .432".  This means they would be a better performer than I original thought in .44 Colts.  In fact, I have several .44 Colt and .44 S&W that are the same diameter!