44 Henry Vs 44-40

[Old Henry616]

How did the 44 Henry stack up against the 44-40 cartridge? I know that the 44-40 was designed to be a more effective cartridge than the Henry, but just how much better was it?
Was the difference so great that it would have been worth it for someone in the 19th century to buy a 44-40 Winchester to replace their 44 Henry one?

[Cap'n Redneck]

The .44 Henry held about 25 grains of powder behind a 216 grain pointed lead bullet.
The .44 WCF held about 40 grains of powder behind a 200 grain flat-nose lead bullet.

I'd say the .44 Henry was an adequate cartridge for shooting people during the Civil & Indian Wars.

The .44 WCF was a better cartridge for hunting with its flat-nose and higher velocity.
The cartridges were better protected from the elements in the Model 1873 mag. tube than in the open mag. of the Henry. 
The Model 1873 with its round mag.tube was lighter (and easier to manufacture) than the integral magazine of the Henry.  The M1873 Saddle Ring Carbine especially gained favor as a saddle gun.
The .44 WCF cartridges were made to be reloadable, which was perhaps the biggest motivation to switch from a Henry to a Model 1873 back in the days...

All that being said, I still prefer my two Uberti Henry rifles over any "Improved Henry" or 1873-clone.
One chambered in .45 Colt, but fed .45 Schofield, for short range (read: main match) work.
One chambered in .44 WCF (and fitted with a tangsight & front tunnel) for long range (read: side match) work.

[mtmarfield]

      Greetings!

   Comparing the powder charges, there really isn't a "tremendous" velocity difference between the two cartridges, it being 100 / 150fps between them. Perhaps the .44 HRF more efficiently ignited a greater area of its smaller BP charge...
   The biggest draw to the .44WCF is the ease to which it can be reloaded; also, the cartridge, its bullets bearing surface and lubricant being protected by virtue of its being seated in the neck of the shell, can be subjected to more rough handling than the .44HRF.
   Although the 1873 is the stronger and more advanced, those that didn't shoot a lot may have been satisfied with their Henry / 1866 long guns. Perhaps Winchester was surprised that well after the 1873 had become established as a technological improvement, they continued to sell the 1866 ( "Improved Henry" ) into the 1890's.
   Also, if you look at the old ammunition prices, you'll see that formerly .44HRF was noticeably cheaper than the .44WCF; but later, .44WCF became far more popular, and cheaper.
   As fighting cartridges, they both look good. They're also decent "food cartridges", in that accuracy is adequate for headshots on all small game, and, at shorter ranges, could take deer humanely...

                  M.T.M.

[Coffinmaker]

Hmmmmmmmm 

Well, the 44-40 runs more energy (heavier bullet) than the Henry 44 Flat which should equate to slightly more effective range.  The difference in terminal ballistics should also result in the 44-40 having more effect.  However, I seriously doubt that neither game nor person would be able to describe the difference    Both cartridges were known to have taken Buffalo, Deer, Antelope, Bear, Moose, Elk and the odd annoying neighbor or two.  The Henry really shines on cartridge capacity though.  In a fighting or military situation however, I'll take the Henry every day.  Much more "fire power" and faster to reload.

Gravitating forward, to CAS activity, the Uberti Henry replica can be set up to run every bit as fast as an 1866 or 1873.  My personal "Go-To" match rifles are Henry rifles.  Two custom built Carbines and a Custom Trapper.  All 45s and all running annealed cases to run clean.  Burma Shave

[Trailrider]

Although a small number of Colt's SA were manufactured chambered for .44 Henry Flat, a big advantage of the .44-40 was that after 1878, when Colt's brought out the Frontier Six Shooter (just the SA in .44-40), you could pack the same ammo for both your sixgun and rifle.

[Black River Smith]

Although a small number of Colt's SA were manufactured chambered for .44 Henry Flat, a big advantage of the .44-40 was that after 1878, when Colt's brought out the Frontier Six Shooter (just the SA in .44-40), you could pack the same ammo for both your sixgun and rifle.

Sorry but you could have done the same thing back in '1872' if you mated your Henry or 1866 Yellowboy Winchester and the Colts' 1872 OpenTop both in 44Henry.

I believe the 44-40 is better because just about everyone back then was looking for more power, just like today's hunters.  Also, most firearms that were used most often were iron metal back to the 1830's or earlier.  Most here would agree that the brass framed Confederate revolvers were made because of cheaper costs.  So, it would make more sense for Winchester to quickly change the gun metal to iron as soon as it was possible (Profit returned for his purchasing and takeover of New Haven Arms).  Read - Houze's book 'Winchester Repeating Arms Company - ITS History and Development from 1865 to 1981'.  Very informative.

[Johnson Barr]

Is it just me thinking no-such-a-thing or is it that Cap-n-Redneck that is aware of 'pointed' .44 Henry cartridges. I've never seen any or for that matter even just one 'pointed' .44 Henry. Please show-n-tell Capn'.

[Cap'n Redneck]

@ Johnson Barr: it's just you.

My reference is R. Bruce McDowell's book "Development of the Henry cartridge", First Edition from 1984.

On pages 35 & 36 are listed and photographed 8 original .44 Henry cartridges, of which 4 are flat-nosed and 4 are pointed and/or round-nosed.

On page 83 is a facsimile reprint of 3 "H"-stamped Winchester-made cartridges:
1: containing 28 grains of powder, 200 grain flat-nose bullet; made for Henry and M1866 rifles.
2. containing 26 grains of powder, 200 grain pointed bullet; made for Henry & 1866 rifles and Colt's revolvers.
3. containing 23 grains of powder, 200 grain flat-nose bullet; made for Henry & 1866 rifles and Colt's revolvers.

On page 84 is a chart of 9 different .44 Henry cartridges that the author considers to be of standard manufacture:

1.  New Haven Arms Co. First Issue Henry Round Nose.
2.  New Haven Arms Co. Henry Flat Cartridge.
3.  Allen Pointed Henry Cartridge.
4.  U.S.C. Co. Henry Target Cartridge. (no bullet-shape noted.)
5.  U.M.C. Round Nose Henry Cartridge.
6.  Winchester Long Case Henry Cartridge.  (no bullet-shape noted.)
7.  Winchester & Colt Flat Nose Henry Cartridge.
8.  Winchester & Colt Pointed Nose Henry Cartridge.
9.  A.M.C. Co. Flat Nose Henry Cartridge.

So; of the 7 where bullet-shape is noted, 2 were pointed and 2 were round-nosed.  3 were flat-nosed.

The point (pun intended) being that pointed .44 Henry ammo was commonly available, and it could (relatively) safely be loaded in a tubular magazine because the rim-fire cartridge held the priming compound in the periphery of the cartridge case.

[Johnson Barr]

 Please make no mistake; I'm not kicking anyone's dog here. I'm just unaware of pointed Henry rounds. Sadly my reference library lacks considerably as compared to yours. Rounds and flats are all I have held in my hand. Many, many years ago while fat-tire cycling over the mule trail used by workers building the Denver, South Park and Pacific Railroads' Alpine Tunnel, my adventuring Pard and I stopped for lunch at the pass. This was several decades before my current adventures in 19th century firearm operations. At my feet in the gravel and dust of the boulder field lunch site I found 3 cartridge cases. One spent, the other two still loaded but were showing twin rim firing pin strikes. The two misfires were loaded with round nose bullets. Head stamped UMC. My thought is that all three were fired, or not, from a rifle.
Would be a story to know what the intended target might have been. The pass is well above treeline. Maybe plinking at Pika or Marmots?
Or celebrating a most glorious view from the top of the Rockies. A far more explosive exhibit of joy vs. spitting sunflower seed hulls. Still a fine and fond memory from a grand adventure in the heights.   

[Abilene]

Here is 7 more pages of discussion of the 44 rimfire vs more modern ammo:
https://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php?topic=35624.0

[Bryan Austin]

How did the 44 Henry stack up against the 44-40 cartridge? I know that the 44-40 was designed to be a more effective cartridge than the Henry, but just how much better was it?
Was the difference so great that it would have been worth it for someone in the 19th century to buy a 44-40 Winchester to replace their 44 Henry one?

"Henry Rifle of 1860" and the Winchester "Model of 1866"...
...as referred to by the catalogs, is really difficult to keep up with which rifle the 1873 catalog is talking about.  After Winchester and Davies purchased Volcanic repeating Arms sometime around 1856, it gets rather complicated. The New Haven Arms Company, by 1857, manufacture the 1860 Henry, "Henry Rifle of 1860". By 1866, Henry lost attempts to regain the company and Winchester changed the name to Winchester Repeating Arms Company. In the meantime, by the end of December 1866, the "Infantry Model" [Winchester Model of 1866] had finished field testing in Switzerland. Testings from 300 to 1,000 paces shooting at 6ft x 6ft, 6ft x 7ft and 7ft x 8ft and 8ft x 10ft targets, resulting in 1.5ft x 1.5ft groups@300 paces (250 yards). Several 50-75 yard shots reported by amateurs resulted in 1/2" to 3" groups.

Time after time the American Indian Warriors proved the importance of this repeating action, especially on the "Custer Battlefield". There archaeologist discovered a couple hundred spent .44 Henry, Winchester 66' and a few Winchester 73" cartridges and cases on a small knoll 265 yards east of Last Stand Hill and a small hill, 150 - 200 yards east of Calhoun Hill, named "Henryville" by the 2004 Archaeology team.

"The Winchester Model of 1873"
1873-1877 - In Winchester's 1875 catalog the first 44 WCF cartridges appeared but were not labeled as "44 W.C.F". Winchester stated, "The effect of this change [from 44 Henry to the 44-40] is to increase the initial velocity of the arm from about 1,125 f.p.s. to 1,325 feet per second."

For more information on the 44's, photos of targets etc, visit the below links;

https://sites.google.com/view/44winchester/chasing-the-44-40/winchester-history

https://sites.google.com/view/44winchester/chasing-the-44-40/winchester-history/1866-switzerland-trials

https://sites.google.com/view/44winchester/chasing-the-44-40/winchester-history/little-bighorn

https://sites.google.com/view/44winchester/chasing-the-44-40

[Bryan Austin]

Is it just me thinking no-such-a-thing or is it that Cap-n-Redneck that is aware of 'pointed' .44 Henry cartridges. I've never seen any or for that matter even just one 'pointed' .44 Henry. Please show-n-tell Capn'.

[Bryan Austin]

I believe the 44-40 is better because just about everyone back then was looking for more power, just like today's hunters. 

The advertised velocity by Winchester, for the 44 Henry, was 1,125fps and for a slightly heavier bullet...in general. The increased velocity, for the 44 WCF, to 1,325fps and a lighter bullet gave a flatter trajectory in yesteryear's standards.

The 44 WCF and the 45-70 had the same basic trajectory out to 200 yards, similar trajectory at 300 yards. What this meant is that for those that shot the 45-70-405, and knew what they were doing, could hit the same targets with the 44-40 with the same elevation corrections.

[Johnson Barr]

A guess the  term 'pointed' is very much subjective. My own concept of a pointed bullet would be a spire point; very much a pointed bullet.

[Bryan Austin]

A guess the  term 'pointed' is very much subjective. My own concept of a pointed bullet would be a spire point; very much a pointed bullet.

Yeap,

Round Nose ("Pointed")
Round Nose, Flat Point....there is that word "point" again!
Pointed...very pointed.....sharp pointed...LOL Spitzer pointed