44 Caliber Barrels

M McCracken · January 20, 2012, 03:57:45 PM

For those who own a 44 caliber USFA, have you slugged the barrel? If so, what did it measure? Also, the chambers. I'm talking about 44wcf, 44sp, & dual cylinder models. From articles I've seen online, in years past, USFA used a .427 barrel for their 44-40s. That apparently hasn't been the case the last few years. I was told, by one person, 44-40s were changed to .428 several years ago. Another said .429 is used on all 44 caliber USFA guns sold today. Conflicting info given to me by two different individuals. Both in a position to know. So, I'm wondering what you guys have discovered.

Even if you haven't checked the barrel or chambers, I'd be curious to know when your USFA 44-40 was made and how it performs. Any accuracy or leading issues?

Thanks

M McCracken · February 22, 2012, 08:40:54 PM

Well, a month, 88 views, and no replies. I thought it was a good question. Reason I asked, is my interest in possibly purchasing a 44-40. Although the info I receive appeared to be contradictory, it was apparently accurate. Seems USFA began the 44-40s with .427, changed to .428 several years ago, and then switched to .429 a year or two ago. I looked back over the archives and didn't find any complaints as to accuracy or leading. That's a good sign, anyway.

Doc Sunrise · February 24, 2012, 03:33:25 AM

You need to check out these articles under the Reveiw Section at US Firearms web page.
http://www.usfirearms.com/pdf/handloader-dec2009b.pdf
Mike Venturino is a person you could ask, I am sure he handloads everything, and he has a USFA 44-40.
http://www.usfirearms.com/pdf/handloader-dec2009.pdf
Brian Pearce is another person who has done handloading with USFA's 44's.
http://www.usfirearms.com/pdf/gunsmag-0909.pdf
Andt the King of 44's, John Taffin.

Hope this helps.

Blackpowder Burn · February 24, 2012, 06:46:39 AM

FWIW, I have a consecutive pair of USFA's in 44WCF that I purchased in 2007. I haven't slugged the barrels, but I shoot 0.428" bullets cast of 20:1 alloy over 32 grains of FFg black powder. Accuracy is great and no leading.

M McCracken · March 08, 2012, 07:45:06 PM

Thanks for the feedback, 'Burn.' A little is better than none, I suppose. This 44 barrel issue is an example of the decline of USFA, as far as I'm concerned. In the beginning, they did the right thing and provided the correct barrel groove diameter for the 44-40, which is .427. Now, they are like Colt, who sends out 44-40s with .429 barrels, which is INCORRECT. Both companies obviously do so to save money. This isn't the only instance of USFA's lowered standards.

mtone · March 09, 2012, 08:33:47 AM

I think using .429 barrels has nothing to do with saving money but has to do with the fact that 44s can be purchased with an additional 44-40 (or 44 Sp) cylinder. I'm not sure if I'd want to consistently shoot 44Sp in a .427 barrel. And more important than the bore is the depth of the grooves. Another issue may deal with liabilty. You order a 44-40 with a 427 barrel and later on when you no longer own it, the new owner purchases a 44Sp cylinder and off he goes. I no longer own a 44 but I had no accuracy problems and haven't heard of any accuracy problems.

Trailrider · March 09, 2012, 10:11:38 AM

Quote from: mtone on March 09, 2012, 08:33:47 AM
I think using .429 barrels has nothing to do with saving money but has to do with the fact that 44s can be purchased with an additional 44-40 (or 44 Sp) cylinder. I'm not sure if I'd want to consistently shoot 44Sp in a .427 barrel. And more important than the bore is the depth of the grooves. Another issue may deal with liabilty. You order a 44-40 with a 427 barrel and later on when you no longer own it, the new owner purchases a 44Sp cylinder and off he goes. I no longer own a 44 but I had no accuracy problems and haven't heard of any accuracy problems.

I've slugged 2nd Gen Colt's SA's in .44 Special, and found they had groove diameters of .427", like the specs for .44-40. This in spite of the fact that the .44 Spl and its father the .44 Russian fired .429-.430 bullets. Don't recall the throat diameters of the cylinders, but lead bullets in .44 Spl. didn't seem to cause accuracy or pressure problems, considering the pressure levels of the factory loads.

The use of .429" barrels by various manufacturers is because they (even Colt's) generally buy barrel blanks from suppliers who make the blanks primarily for .44 Magnums. It cuts costs, which otherwise would run up the prices of the guns and which would get complaints or affect the sales to retail buyers. Since most of the rifles made in .44-40 today have .429" barrels it isn't all tha bad for the pistols to be the same. The problems come when cylinders are chambered, where the manufacturer of the pistols use the SAAMI standard for the cartridge to size the chambering reamers and throaters. Ruger, for example, in their initial runs of the OM Vaqueros in .44-40 had the throats as tight as .425"! And were using .429" barrels. (Those guns can be made to shoot well without reaming the throats...just use hard-cast bullets and smokeless powder!) SAAMI needs to revise the cartridge dimension standards for .44-40 "modern".

mtone · March 09, 2012, 10:58:51 AM

I've been told the early USFA guns used 427 for the 44-40 and 429 for the 44 Sp. It wasn't until they began doing dual chambering that the 427s were dropped. Ditto on the throats.

hanover67 · January 07, 2013, 05:46:45 PM

I ordered a USFA .44 Special in 2010 (got it a year later in 2011). At the time I wrote and asked what their barrel diameters were and they replied .429". I haven't slugged my bore, but I'm using bullets sized to .430" in this gun and a Cimarron/Uberti .44 Spl Bisley with no signs of leading and good accuracy. I also have a 1978 made Colt New Frontier .44 and I did slug that one which is .427"

Pettifogger · January 07, 2013, 07:26:30 PM

Quote from: M McCracken on March 08, 2012, 07:45:06 PM
Thanks for the feedback, 'Burn.' A little is better than none, I suppose. This 44 barrel issue is an example of the decline of USFA, as far as I'm concerned. In the beginning, they did the right thing and provided the correct barrel groove diameter for the 44-40, which is .427. Now, they are like Colt, who sends out 44-40s with .429 barrels, which is INCORRECT. Both companies obviously do so to save money. This isn't the only instance of USFA's lowered standards.

There's no such thing as "correct" or "incorrect" with .44-40s. If you have ever measured any originals they run from .423 to .435. Industry standard is .429 and I am glad they all now use a common size. Pain in the neck loading different bullets for different guns.

Coffinmaker · January 07, 2013, 08:03:01 PM

Hallelujah Pettifogger!!!!

I can't count the number of folks who wanted barrels re-bored (I didn't), cylinders re-chambered (didn't do that either) in the interest of Period Correctness (horsepucky), or just plain sameness. As stated there is no single "correct." I've slugged bores of old Colts, Renningtons, Smiths and the odd Merwin and got the same results Pettifogger has. Then we can all about Rifles. Same results. All .44s are not created equal.
The most important factor is the relationship of a handguns throat diameter to the bore diameter. Throat gotta be bigger. Inna rifle the bullet gotta be bigger than the bore and the round has to chamber. You can shoot 430 bullets through a 427 bore with no problem. Just can't go the other way with good results.
Standardized bore is a good thing. But you should still slug. The manufactures don't change boring tools at the slightest imperfection and never have. Regardless of printed specs, they all ship what ever comes off the assembly tables.

Coffinmaker