Any .44-40 ammunition made today is still safe for any rifle chambered for it. I doubt anyone has ever made hot .44-40 ammo. Like lots of old calibers, the ammo makers know there are lots of old rifles still being used so they load to SAAMI specs and no hotter.
Probably the mildest ammo is Black Hills lead loads.
Only ammo I can think of that might make anything other than low pressure rounds might be someone like Garrett ammo, but it would say so on the box.
Have your rifle looked at by someone who knows the platform to make sure its safe to shoot at all.

 

I doubt anyone has ever made hot .44-40 ammo

 

I can’t help with your question but would love to see some pics. A 1873 is really high on my list but I don’t know enough to tell a diamond in the rough from a pile of broken junk or a rifle built from mismatched spare parts.

 

I agree....the brass for the 44/40 is so thin & fragile to begin with - I have never heard of or seen anyone attempt to hot load the round.....

 

I run warmer loads in my '92 clone .44-40, but the 92 is a much stronger action than the '73, especially an original '73.

 

GunBot 4440 rifle ammo

Find cheapest in-stock 4440 rifle ammo

www.gunbot.net

 

Great thanks, just going to pick it up now. I will post some pics tonight.
John

 

Hogwash
Winchester manufactured "44 WHV M92" ammunition for the Winchester Model 92' from 1903 till 1938 but was sold through 1942 (nearly 40 years). According to 1917 data, these loads had a servicer pressure of 18,000cup and a proof pressure of 23,500cup.

Lyman's 49th handloading manual shows 19 rifles chambered for the 44-40 and several HV loads for 9 (Group II) strong action rifles only.

However, to answer the OP's question,
Unless stated otherwise, any modern factory manufactured ammunition will be safe as long as the rifle is in a safe condition to shoot.
Winchester Super-X hunting loads are neutered to 1,190fps and Winchester's "Cowboy" reduced recoil loads are nothing more than mouse farts at 800fps from a rifle. Buffalo Bore's "Heavy" are manufactured at or below SAAMI's max pressures and generate 1,350fps in rifles.

The key to safe operations with the 44-40 firearms is the bore size (.424" to .433') vs bullet size (.4255" to .430") as well as bullet material, i.e. hard lead, soft lead and jacketed. Trying to stuff a .430" bullet down a .424" bore will ruin your day if loaded to normal max pressures.

If folks are serious about the 44-40 SAGA, visit the 44-40 website and spend the next week digging into all the data.

Chasing the 44-40 - Chasing The 44-40

"Winchester's "New Model of 1873" The 44 Center Fire Cartridge Is Born The New Model of 1873 was not shown in Winchester's 1873 catalog. It has been reported that only about 16 of these new rifles were shipped by the END of 1873. The delays were supposedly caused by the ill-fated Milbank primers.

sites.google.com

 

Hogwash
Winchester manufactured "44 WHV M92" ammunition for the Winchester Model 92' from 1903 till 1938 but was sold through 1942 (nearly 40 years). According to 1917 data, these loads had a servicer pressure of 18,000cup and a proof pressure of 23,500cup.

I don't think you can really compare copper units to psi. Totally different methodologies. Not sure if anyone has ever come up with a truly reliable conversion for that either.
That being said, my Google-Fu found this: CUP to PSI calc
It didn't like the 18k CUP measurement as it considers it invalid. Methinks you mixed up the numbers or units (possibly).
Also peruse this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_units_of_pressure
(Yes..it's a Wiki, but it's actually a pretty good explanation.)

 

What exactly are you saying is HOGWASH if I may ask?

 

Cracked and fractured case walls come to mind when talking about hotter loads - at least in my mind. I do [did] a lot of reloading over time and never saw the need to shorten case life in fragile cases like the 44/40. That was my main point of view.....

 

I understand. I thought I would just add to but I don't want to ruffle Wa14gunner's feathers any more since the OP was posting about ammo for the Winchester 73'.

I have reloaded HV cases many many times, for (testing purposes) without any failures of any kind. The typical case mouth cracks I have encountered was the result of using the LFCD. When I used the correct method, or other dies for my particular application, I don't have any case failures from any certain type load.

In the following photo, the LFCD crack was from using the 44-40 diameter LFCD on larger 44 mag bullets. The collets do not close all the way when used on larger diameter bullets, forcing the brass into the gap and creating a little bump. This caused the weak area where the crack formed.

As far as other failures, most were due to what I described in my above post. The HV loads were not to be reloaded because of the "balloon pockets". The below pocket failure developed when using black powder loads for testing pressures here: Balloonhead Pocket Black Powder Testing

 

"I understand. I thought I would just add to but I don't want to ruffle Wa14gunner's feathers any more since the OP was posting about ammo for the Winchester 73'"

If you dont want to ruffle anyones feathers you might consider not injecting yourself into a conversation by calling HOGWASH on someones post, especially when your post is number two on the forum.
Otherwise welcome to the M14 forum.

 

Poor baby. You're a joke.

 

Your 1873 is a great rifle but it was made to shoot lead not jacketed bullets. I load mine with low pressure loads and lead only. Treat it right it's a classic.

 

For what it's worth since this is only my sixth(?) post here...the lead only vs jacketed bullets used in the 73' is not accurate.
The first smokeless powder offered for the 44-40 by Winchester was in 1895. These were specifically manufactured for the Winchester 73's (as noted on the label), regardless of year of manufacture but also for use in the 92's. Below is a photograph of the first box design between 1895 and 1902. "Winchester Rifle Model 1873'" right on the top and side labels as well as the noted "Metal Patched" (jacketed soft point) bullets. The Model 92' is noted in small letters on the side label, confirming the distinction between the two rifles. However, the lead bullets of the time were .427" while the JSP (metal patch) bullets were .4255". I have two boxes of these red labeled lead bullet options from 1914. It has been assumed that the reason for the smaller diameter JSP bullet is to reduce, or keep the chamber pressures lower when used in tight bore rifles. Bores were known to be as small as .424" and as large as .433". It is also important to note that hard cast lead was not used, assumed to keep the pressures low if used in small bores.

On a side note, Winchester used (17gr) of Dupont No.2 "Bulk" rifle smokeless powder which created less pressures than black powder. Winchester used this smokeless powder from it's inception in 1895 until 1925 when it was replaced by (12gr) of Dupont Sharpshooter smokeless powder. Winchester used (19gr) of Sharpshooter rifle powder in their 44 WHV loads from 1903 till the end of production in 1938. Winchester continued to use Sharpshooter in their normal loads until around 1948 when Winchester switched to (15gr) of what appears to be a pistol ball powder. Winchester switched to (12gr) of a flattened ball powder in 1958 and then to (12gr) of a flake powder in 1978. Proof loads during 1963 used 16gr of the flattened ball powder. Original velocities could no longer be achieved with the pistol powders without "exceeding SAAMI normal max pressures". Winchester now uses (by 1978) (8gr) of a flake powder in today's Super-X Hunting Loads and only (4.9gr) of a flake powder in their reduced recoil "Cowboy" loads. Buffalo Bore, as mentioned earlier, uses about 10.5gr of a flake powder.

Furthermore, 1917 information (earliest data I have seen) from Winchester's Cartridge Engineering Office, shows the service pressures (in cup) used in the Winchester 73' and Winchester 92'

 

Correct, they are totally two different testing methods. However, what we have are "tools" to use and right now SAAMI has published data for both CUP and PSI for the 44-40. That would be that SAAMI tested the same batch of test ammo in both the CUP method and the PSI method. SAAMI published 11,000psi map for the strain gauge method and 13,000cup for the copper crusher method. With that we can do basic math for reasonable results for this cartridge only. So...within a single chambering the conversion by the ratio of the CUP and psi maps within the SAAMI system is going to be close enough for practical work. That is, 11000 psi divided by 13000 CUP is 0.846 psi/CUP for the 44-40, so you can take the CUP numbers in the Lyman Manual and multiply them by 0.846 to get a reasonable expectation of psi. Conversely, dividing psi by that same number will come close to CUP." Again, this is ONLY for the 44-40 for close proximity measures.

There are more tools we need to do this reasonably and that would include RSI's PressuretraceII strain gauge system and a cartridge with a known honest published pressure. Buffalo Bore manufactured a 44-40 load that they claim is right at or or just below SAAMI 11,000psi/13,000cup max pressures.

SAAMI 44-40 Pressures, CUP on page 33 and PSI on page 45: SAAMI 44-40 MAX Pressures

With all of these tools, we use the Buffalo Bore load as a "control" and test all other loads and see where the data falls. That has been done and all of the data falls in a consistent linear line from 1880's replicated loads to modern factory loads as well as modern published loads by Lyman. So if the Buffalo Bore data is incorrect, all corrections must be made equally, high or low, for all other loads. Also note factory loads seem to use a safety buffer of 10% to 20%.

This data can be seen here: 44-40 PSI/CUP Chart
As well as here: 44-40 Black Powder Pressure Tests
(Check the tabs at the bottom of each page for other tests results and information)

Videos explaining this data can be seen here: Videos (make sure you watch the black powder video)

Here is a brief chart that shows some of the results.
The colors represent three chamber pressure ranges,
Green - normal loads
Yellow - Exceeds SAAMI map loads but loads used during the 1930's
Light Red - 1903-1938 44 Winchester High Velocity Pressure Range to 18,000cup
Dark Red - exceeds HV service pressures of 18,000cup as well as some test loads exceeding the HV Proof Pressures of 22,000cup.

Of course, the below information is not to be used as load data.

 

So...within a single chambering the conversion by the ratio of the CUP and psi maps within the SAAMI system is going to be close enough for practical work.

I wouldn't rely on that assumption.

 

Look at the data results from the PressuretraceII system and you will see that it is close FOR THIS PARTICULAR CARTRIGE, although certainly not exactly linier by any means. The data proves otherwise. I bet you $1trillion you failed to even look at the data, charts and links I posted.

 

Thanks guys appreciate the feedback.
Will see if I can locate some locally.
John

 

Sawraihchra
Just to summarize ammunition for the early 44-40 firearms

As long as the firearms is in good working order, any modern commercial manufactured ammunition is fine for the ole girls unless noted otherwise.

Let me explain why...
Some early and even later rifle and revolver bores were manufactured as small as .422" and.424", but in general between .427" and .433". Later bores were standardized at .429" and even new firearms are using .429" to .430" bores while it has been reported that Winchester still uses .427". Thus the big debate!!!!!

Early soft lead bullets were as small as .424" but typically .427", all safe for small bores as long as the bullet was pure lead. Early Winchester boxes contained reloading instructions to cast with pure lead. By 1895, after smokeless powder was introduced, Winchester basically standardized .427" soft lead (always swaged) bullets and .4255" Soft Point (Jacketed Soft Point) bullets. The reason behind the smaller diameter for the JSP is because of the hard projectile traveling through a small bore creates higher pressures than with soft lead.

Lyman's 49th handloading manual uses several bullet options of which all are sized .429", both lead and jacketed. The main reason the load charges are what they are is in case folks use them in the smaller bores, increasing the chamber pressures but still theoretically staying lower than SAAMI 13,000cup or at least not blowing the barrel. If the load data was to replicate original ballistics or did not include a safety margin, the older smaller bore firearms would suffer greatly.

So basically many Winchester 73' rifles had bores as small as .422" and as large as .433". This did not really effect accuracy when using soft lead. The soft lead would squeeze down with less resistance and pressure than hard cast or jacketed bullets. Also, when using correct pressures, on the high side, the soft lead would expand into the oversized bore and maintain accuracy.

To ease any doubt, you should slug the bore with a slug kit or an ole .440 soft lead round ball.

Buffalo Bore has a disclosure about using their 44-40 ammunition because they load their 44-40 ammunition right at SAAMI max pressures rather than adding a safety margin for such small bore firearms.
Here is a snippet from their website: Don't get hung up on the pre-1900 "old iron" stuff, that is directed at revolvers, namely Colt and is actually another separate story.

Back in the 1800’s, there was no way for the gun/ammo industry to standardize pressures or firearm dimensions, hence my hesitancy to produce modern ammo designed for specific firearm dimensions of today. Allow me to give you an example of just one set of dynamics that are problematic. Early Colt revolvers specified a bore diameter of .427 inch, (44 SPL and 44 Mag. utilize .429 inch bore diameters) but some of those revolvers used a chamber throat of .423-.424 inch. This was done to raise pressures with black powder and get uniform ignition and higher velocity from revolvers (this is not an issue with rifles) by forcing that soft, pure lead bullet of around .427-.428 diameter into the smaller chamber throat and forcing that chamber throat to size down the bullet………...then, when that soft bullet would hit the .427 bore, it was soft enough to “slug up” to .427, seal the bore, shoot accurately and at high velocity. So, here’s one of the problems in making modern ammo……. if someone is negligent enough to fire modern ammo featuring HARD CAST bullets through an old revolver with such undersized chamber throats……hard cast bullets are much harder than pure lead and if you try to force a very hard bullet through a grossly undersized chamber throat, that hard bullet will not easily size down like pure lead and would, therefore, raise pressures higher than the old iron (not steel, but iron) revolvers can withstand. To avoid this type of issue, please do not shoot this modern 44-40 ammo through any revolver made before 1900. By 1900, the steel used for these revolvers, was actually steel, not iron.