Cimmeron Spencer

[Wes Tancred]

Let us suppose that Henrys and 1866s were to be produced with the original frame and carrier dimensions (which should not be a difficult or costly undertaking for firms already producing these rifles [Uberti and Chaparral Arms; the latter making only the 1866 at this point]), and chambered in .44 Russian. The .44 Russian is, as you say, extremely similar in dimensions to the .44 Henry central fire, which, in turn, is of the same dimensions as the .44 Henry rim fire. The only thing needed to convert a Henry or 1866 in .44 Russian to .44 Henry rim fire would be a rim fire bolt. Guns could even be offered with two fitted bolts, for a choice of rim or central fire, or after-market rim fire bolts could be offered.

Some readers might be thinking of interjecting here that the groove diameter of original Henry bores was larger than the .427-.429 inch nominal diameter of the .44 WCF, and .44 Russian and Special. However, one of the original army reports on testing of the Henry rifle, issued during the war of northern aggression, included carefully made measurements of the test gun and the ammunition, and the groove diameter of the barrel bore was stated as .430". At that time bore and bullet dimensions for the same calibre could vary quite a bit with respect to the nominal values, and the combination of very soft lead bullets and black powder as the propellant was very forgiving of these discrepancies.

What I am getting at is that once Henrys and 1866s of original dimensions are made, the jump to rim fire would be simple and inexpensive. However, it is my opinion that production of .44 Henry rim fire cartridges would do more than serve those who desire historically correct arms. These cartridges could be produced at significantly lower cost than central fire cartridges of the same calibre, and the use of aluminium, as in the CCI Blaser ammunition (which is not reloadable), would lower the costs still further. This would find favour with the many shooters of historical arms who do not reload, especially in the case of CAS shooters, who expend a great deal of ammunition.

Our aims, Gotzguns, are actually perfectly complementary, since the guns we would like to see produced are identical but for the bolt.

P.S. The same army report mentioned above listed two loadings of the .44 Henry cartridge, both with 216-grain bullets. Every-one has heard of the loading with 28 grains of powder, but the army were also supplied with cartridges for "greater penetration", loaded with 31 grains of powder.

[gotzguns]

i agree. this would be a easy transition to go from 44 russian to 44 rimfire. and remember you can shoot 44 russian out of any 44 colt, spl. or even 44mag. pistol. so you would have no trouble there with all the 1860 conversion and open tops. gotzguns

[Steamboat Jack Maybe]

I believe (and it MAYBE true) that the new .44 Colt (by Texas Jack of Cimarron) was made to replicate the .44 Henry except as center fire.  The difference with the .44 Russian/Special is in the rim dimensions that are smaller in the Colt/Henry.  This allows 6 shots in the 1860 conversions, etc.

I suppose that an enterprising manufacturer could produce some marked ".44 Henry CF".

Shoot Safe and Have Fun!

Steamboat Jack Maybe

[Fox Creek Kid]

I believe (and it MAYBE true) that the new .44 Colt (by Texas Jack of Cimarron) was made to replicate the .44 Henry except as center fire.

Wrong, sir. Overall case length for normal .44 Rimfire was 0.896 & .44 Colt is 1.10. Case head diam. for the .44 Rimfire was approx. 0.520 & .44 Colt 0.483.

[Wes Tancred]

But, if I am not mistaken, the 1.10" case length of the .44 Colt is for inside lubricated bullets. The case would be significantly shorter for loads employing heel-based bullets. It does seem that any member of the .44 Russian, Special, or Magnum family of cases could be shortened to the .44 S&W American (a cartridge with heel-based bullets) length of about 0.90", to arrive at a case very similar to that of the .44 Henry central fire.

[Black River Smith]

Wes,

The 1.10" length is correct for original 44Colts that used only heeled bullets.  The same length was maintained in the new modern 44Colt Starline casings.

The diameter was the big/main difference (and the rim diameter also).  The original 44Colt diameter was 0.457-8.  Whereas the diameter of the modern day 44 Colt casing is based off the 44 Rus/44Special/44Mag family.

The original bullet diameter was 0.454 for the 0.454 diameters of the original percussion and modern percussion 1860's barrel.  The inside bullet at 0.429 is modern day and the barrel diameter for only the modern conversions in now 0.429-30, to allow us the ease of shooting modern day bullets. Some very early conversions that utilized the (as is) 0.454 percussion 1860 barrels and the new 44Colt(44Spec family) required a hollow base 0.429 bullet to be used.  People have to reload only.

This barrel diameter/bullet diameter difference is the only reason why modern day conversion drop-in cylinders are all 45's so that people obtain the accuracy out of the large barrel diameters and why the new conversion in 44 caliber are manufactured with smaller diameter barrels.  Once again to allow us the ease of shooting modern day bullets. People can buy stor bought ammo

All base on marketing/manufacturing sense.

I myself prefer the old way.  I like the 44Colt heeled bullet or can use the hollow base.  I wish they would produce a 44Colt drop-in for the 1860 using the 44Starline brass. I will reload.

As far as the 1866/Henry issue, to me the 44 Spec modified to handle the 44Rus is close enough to the original 44Henry round both in bullet weight and powder capacity.  No need to create a new size gun.  It also stays away from forgery problems.

[Fox Creek Kid]

The original 44Colt diameter was 0.457-8.  Whereas the diameter of the modern day 44 Colt casing is based off the 44 Rus/44Special/44Mag family.

The original .44 Colt heel based cartridge had the same head diameter as the new version as it had to operate in a tight cylinder, i.e. the 1860 conversion. The only difference I thought was the usage of an inside 0.430 bullet as opposed to the heel based. The .44 Russian & Special as well as magnum have a larger head than the .44 Colt. As a matter of fact the .44 Russian used an OUTSIDE lubricated bullet well into the 1880's before a reknowned pistol shooter persuaded UMC to use an inside lubed bullet. This was covered about 5 years ago in an article in Handloader magazine. The original bullet for the Russian was 270 gr. as well.

[Wes Tancred]

Black River,

I stand corrected regarding the case length of the original .44 Colt employing heel-based bullets. This begs the question as to why the modern .44 Colt case is not made longer, so that with inside-lubricated bullets, the original overall cartridge length would be maintained. Perhaps the use of heel-based bullets was planned at the outset, when the modern cartridge was conceived.

I agree that it is disappointing when manufacturing decisions are made to accommodate convenience rather than to encourage the appreciation and use of original configurations. But from a marketing standpoint, the decision is, alas, rational. There are exceptions, of which the .56-.50 Armi Sport Spencer is a happy example (putting aside the switch to central fire configuration, which in this case was essentially a necessity).

I do think that Henrys and 1866s with the original frame dimensions would find a market. Such a potential market may increase in time as those in CAS look to new concepts to keep the game interesting. And as I pointed out in an earlier message, I think that large calibre rim fire cartridges could be made considerably more cheaply than the central fire types, which would cater to the many shooters who do not care to reload. I will admit that these are opinions that could turn out to be wrong if submitted to a market experiment.

But there is one point on which I must vehemently disagree: that Henry rifles of original frame dimensions should not be manufactured, on the grounds that it would facilitate the work of forgers. The idea that items should not be marketed, because of the bad things people might do with them, could be used as a false justification to ban the manufacture and sale of countless products. When a forgery of a valuable antique gun is made, the moral fault lies solely with the forger, and not with the manufacturer who strove to make his replicas as accurate as possible. The manufacturer has no moral obligation to make his products proof against the immoral acts a buyer may contemplate perpetrating with them. On a practical basis, most forgeries can be detected by experts, and many replicas of very valuable original guns are made to at least approximate the original dimensions.

[Black River Smith]

Fox Creek,
Look at Dixies catalog in the back.  They give cartridge conversion suggestions.  It recommends using a cut 30/40 Krag casing in order to reproduce the original 44Colt.  Definitely larger base than the 44 modern family.

That is where and why I come up with my statements.

The modern 44 family was easier to use and comvenient.

Wes if you went with your ideal of lengthed the 44Colt for inside lube(like the 41Colt heeled and it corresponding inside 41Colt long), you would end up with a 44 Spec fitting(I know rim diameter not the same but...) in the chamber and you know someone would accidently do it.  That problem is why the manufacturers/designers of the new Open Tops and R-M just went ahead and made their cylinders larger (near SAA size) and will accept the 44Starline Colt, 44Rus/Spec(some) smokeless cartridges.

[Wes Tancred]

Black River,

I did not mean to imply that a lengthened modern .44 Colt was something I wanted to see on the market. Like you, I prefer things as original as possible. I take it from your comments that the chambers of replica .44 Colt revolvers are not bored straight through, but in fact have a shoulder that would prevent a cartridge longer than the .44 Special (in a short loading) from entering. From your other comments above, it would appear that the chambers are long enough to permit the use of heel-based bullets without shortening the cases or reaming out the chambers.

[Backstrap Bill]

I have a Cimarron in 56-50, had it about a year now.  Looks great, shoots well.

[matt45]

Howdy to this thread,
Backstrap Bill, I am glad to hear that, as mine is on order, and some of the notes from other sites are a little discouraging   I bring this next point up on this thread because of all the rim-fire comments.  Does anyone here know of anybody that ever shot any original Spencer ammo?   My old neighbor used a 44 rimfire once, but that is the closest I can get.
                                                                           matt45

[Black River Smith]

Matt45,

Not certain what you have read or are refering too.  All original Spencers fired rimfire cartridge.  For this reason if someone wanted to use an original Spencer, they have to buy a upper conversion block and install it, so that they then can fire centerfire modern ammo.  The ammo is converted from 0.348 and 50-70 as brought up in one of your other postings.

The new manufactured Armi-Sport Spencers' are or were produced in 44Rus, 45 SW Sch. and 56/50.  I think the 44Rus has been discontinued.  The first two are originally centerfire casings.  The later is a new modern version of the rimfire original.  The brass for this 56/50 cartridge is supplied by Starline brass and there are several styles of 350gr bullets that we use. 

I do not believe that there is any, even a limited supply of 56/50 rimfire ammo, or anyone newly manufacturing the 56/50 rimfire cartridge in order for anyone to really shoot the originals.

[matt45]

I'll clarify that last.  Winchester manufactured the 56-50 rimfire until 1919, if I am remembering my Cartridges of the World correctly.  I was wondering if anyone knew any old-timers who had ever fired one, or anybody that has any anecdotal stories of the same.  Thanks.
                                                                        matt45

[Major 2]

Well yeah ... I remember about 1980 I bought my first Spencer in a basket, a gunsmith had disasembled it for a guy to polish and refinish. The guy never paid the bill so the Smith sold the gun to me ( he had it for about 15 months ).
I reassembled the gun in the white ( it still is ).
I was at a gun show and bought about 6 rounds of 56-56 in good condition for a $1 each.
5 of the six fired, the sixth took two hammer hits and never fired.
That gun, as well as my later one (also 56-56 ) are both converted to centerfire today.
Ironically, a custom ammo maker charges $ 1 a round for 56-56 centerfire

[matt45]

Hoowah,
My neighbor's (Gil's 91) Granddad had a 66 with a half box of shells.  Gil used all of them up one day when he was seven or eight trying to kill a deer.  So I was curious if the rimfires for the spencer would more or less do the same thing- sounds like they would.
                                                                                  matt45

[Bead Swinger]

While I have to agree that a repro Henry more-true-to-form to the original in .44 Russian would be really great (and I'd go buy one), I still think something really cool in .44 R or .44C would be that Evans Rifle that Two Flints posted on several months ago. 20+ rounds in the buttstock? Rolling block action?  Nice blue Octagon barrell? Way too much fun.

[Tuolumne Lawman]

The main problem with 44 russian in a Henry is the lack of case capacity to get 25-28 grain of BP in it.  It will take only about 19 tops, if I remember right.

I sold an original 1866 receiver and lifter to Charley Gulley about eleven or twelve years ago.  He rebuilt it modifying 1873 parts and tried to duplicate the 44 Henry center fire.  The Russian was a tad too short and not enough powder.  He ended up using 44 Specials cut down a tad (there was no 44 Colt Black Hills ammo back then) and loaded it with 28 grains FFFG and a 200 grain bullet.  He loved it, but the last I heard a few years back, he sold it in a moment of weakness!  I wish I had it now!

I think 44 Special or Colt is the way to go.  In a pinch the .45 Schofields with 200 grainers and 28 FFG duplicate it and work well, but have too much blow-by in the 45 Colt chamber.  Thats why I switched to 44-40.

[Two Flints]

Here you go Bead Swinger,

Check out this link...not a bad price for a nice looking Evans.

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/content/community/gun_inventory/inventory/buda/antique/489855_evans.jsp

Two Flints