Comparing Pistol Cartridges .44 Colt to .44 Henry?

[Long Johns Wolf]

According to the late Bruce McDowell the Colt made 1860 Army Conversions Richards, Richards Transitional and Richards-Mason had 8" barrels and were made for the .44 Colt CF cartridge. According to the same source the Colt Open Top with 7,5" barrels were made for the .44 Henry RF cartridge as were a few Army gunsmith conversions like the Long Cylinder Conversions. If memory serves all these pistols had barrel groove diameters of .451.
The original factory load of the .44 Colt was a 210 gr bullet over 21 grains of BP, whereas the Henry load was a 200 or 216 gr bullet over 26 to 28 gr of BP.
Based on this data would the assumption be correct that the .44 Henry is the more powerful cartridge in pistols of comparative barrel length?
Does any of you pards & pardettes can help me with supportive information regarding this subject?
Thanks for your help.
Long Johns Wolf

[Coffinmaker]

With BP, the two loads would have been actually very close.  I would think the .44 Henry would have been slightly ahead, but not by much.  There was a difference in case design that would have affected pressure and volume,  so I would hesitate to guess the actual difference.
In my .44 Open Tops, I shoot .44 Russian cases to more closely match the case of the .44 Henry.  With a modified carrier, I shoot the same case in my 1866.  The result is a rather mild load for both.  Since the original Henry case was copper and balloon head rim fire and the .44 Russian is a modern solid head case there is again a difference in case volume/capacity.  While I'm not duplicating an actual ancient load, shooting the little short cases in both guns is way cool.
Don't know if this actually helps, it's just for FUN!!

Coffinmaker

PS:  I seriously doubt the 1/2 inch difference in barrel made any difference you could measure.

[Long Johns Wolf]

Thanks for your comments Coffinmaker: regarding the barrel length I am with you. I would push it a bit further and speculate that the difference in the bullet weight can be neglected as well.  We can also probably assume that the type of BP used is comparable.
That leaves only to consider the factory load of 21 grains of BP in the .44 Colt case compared to at least 26 grains in the Henry case...which looks like a significant difference...that's almost 25 %. And if it was compared to the factory load in the Henry case of 28 grains of BP the difference is > 30 %.
I cannot say, however, what kind of an impact the different type of ignition will have on the power factor at the end of the day.
Long Johns Wolf

[Fox Creek Kid]

...I cannot say, however, what kind of an impact the different type of ignition will have on the power factor at the end of the day...

Many have speculated that the fulminate of mercury used in the RF loads boosted ignition by circa. 10%.

[Abilene]

On this subject: I could be confused on this, but seem to recall reading that the .44 Rimfire that the Opentop used was similar but different from the .44 Henry RF.  If that is so, were the cartridges interchangeable?  And were the bullets and powder charges any different?

[Fox Creek Kid]

On this subject: I could be confused on this, but seem to recall reading that the .44 Rimfire that the Opentop used was similar but different from the .44 Henry RF.  If that is so, were the cartridges interchangeable?  And were the bullets and powder charges any different?

Excellent point as the OT was mainly chambered for the Win. .44 Stetson patent RF ctg. and no other would chamber.  

[Long Johns Wolf]

FCK: regarding the OT rimfire cartridge that is an interesting point that I was not aware of. Please, educate me. What is the difference between the .44 Henry RF and the .42 Stetson RF in terms of dimensiions, powder charge and bullet weight.
Thanks.
Long Johns Wolf

[Fox Creek Kid]

FCK: regarding the OT rimfire cartridge that is an interesting point that I was not aware of. Please, educate me. What is the difference between the .44 Henry RF and the .42 Stetson RF in terms of dimensiions, powder charge and bullet weight.
Thanks.
Long Johns Wolf

The Stetson Patent ctg. had a swaged bullet that was basically machine roll crimped into place. U.S. Patent 120403, assigned to the Winchester Repeating Arms Company on October 31, 1871.

[Montana Slim]

Remember too, that period factory loaded cartridges were often loaded per the "whim" of the manufacturer and may have contained filler (stacks of cardboard and/or paper), reducing powder capacity. Why? ...lower cost a posibility...reduced fouling another...remember there were no "standards" such as SAAMI back in the day. But, they had plenty of advertising and hype as we have today 

Slim

[Long Johns Wolf]

Thanks pards. When I get that right the .44 Stetson RF is a "production optimized" .44 Henry RF with essentially the same specs regarding powder and bullet weight?
OK, it that is the case back to my original question, please...is the .44 Henry RF aka .44 Stetson RF more powerful than the .44 Colt CF in pistols of comparable barrel length?
Long Johns Wolf

[Shotgun Franklin]

The .44 Henry is a little more powerful but not enough to make much difference. Both, from a handgun, are good close range self defense rounds. You could kill a WT deer at close range.

[Long Johns Wolf]

According to cartridge collectors over here the Stetson .44 Henry RF is dimensional, regarding pwoder load and bullet weight about identical with ist predessessor the .44 Henry RF.
The question that was brought up, however, is: is the rifling groove dia of the original Colt Open Top M1871-72 .451" like the Colt Army conversions? Is there a pard or pardette out there who can take a measurement, please, and let me know?
Thanks
Long Johns Wolf

[Fox Creek Kid]

The '72 Open Tops have a bore diameter of 0.420'' & a GROOVE diameter of 0.440''. It's in the McDowell book. 

[Long Johns Wolf]

FCK: Thanks for that hind. However, I like to hear from the owner of one if the rifling groove dia really is .44. I have the gut feeling that there are specimens out there where the dia is more like .451, like in the conversions.
Thanks.
Long Johns Wolf

[Fox Creek Kid]

McDowell says in his book he measured several.

[Long Johns Wolf]

FCK & all: McDowell is a useful source but I cannot reproduce some of his his measuring when it comes to Armies and their conversions. Unfortunately I have no original Open Top to measure the bore.
On the other hand why would Colt back then make the RM Army barrels and the OT barrels which are the same design, with different rifling groove diameters if the same would work?
Long Johns Wolf

[Shotgun Franklin]

From everything I've read the Open Tops were only stop-gap products, being made until a new design especially built for a cartridge could be produced. Other than the specific parts needed to make percussion parts into a cartridge gun, Colt used parts on hand. I fully expect the bore on an Open Top to match that of a percussion gun used as a part source. The bullet was made soft enough to expand to fit the bore, close was good enough to work.

[Sir Charles deMouton-Black]

Golly!  If MCDOWELL is so unreliable I'd better donate my copy to a thrift shop.

[Fox Creek Kid]

...On the other hand why would Colt back then make the RM Army barrels and the OT barrels which are the same design, with different rifling groove diameters if the same would work?
Long Johns Wolf

Again, McDowell covers this in the book. Colt was experimenting at this time as metallic ctgs. were in their infancy. My theory is:

1.  Colt saw the light & that rimfire was NOT the future & that central fire was.

2.  Colt, in a glutted post war economy, needed a ''money maker'' and that was the Open Top as it utilized what was then THE most highly circulated ctg. in the Americas, i.e., the .44 Henry RF.


3.  Colt knew that the '60 Army RM would be a limited run as they were preparing to phase out the percussion weapons & therefore were experimenting with gain twist as well as diferent rates of twist. Thsi carried over into the SAA prototypes as well.