|
|
Post by LeverGunner on Feb 22, 2024 15:38:17 GMT -5
When it was introduced in 1879, what advantage was had, or said to be had, by a person choosing 38 WCF over 44 WCF?
I could understand if you for some reason already had a revolver chambered in 38 WCF when you purchased your rifle, but to choose a rifle in that chambering over 44 WCF when making the initial choice, and having a choice (I could also understand if you were in need and that's all that happened to be available to you), I wonder what prompted anyone to choose the 38 WCF.
Was there any advantage to be had by the person choosing 38 WCF in a revolver? In other words, if you look at a rifle/revolver combo, does that 38 WCF present any advantages over the 44 WCF?
|
|
|
|
Post by Encore64 on Feb 22, 2024 15:40:36 GMT -5
Probably better trajectory? In those days I doubt many whined about recoil...
|
|
|
|
Post by potatojudge on Feb 22, 2024 16:12:54 GMT -5
In the era of black powder, was minimizing or maximizing smoke a concern?
Otherwise I’d assume trajectory.
|
|
sharps4590
.30 Stingray
I'm a Christian first, husband and father next then a patriotic, veteran, firearms aficionado.
Posts: 362
|
Post by sharps4590 on Feb 22, 2024 19:51:00 GMT -5
Ok...."back in the day" there was a writer in the Northeast who said the 38-40 "shot hard" and was convinced it was all that was needed for deer and evidently, IIRC, it was quite popular in his area, from the mid-Atlantic up through Maine. Maybe Nessmunk?
Ballistics. I haven't looked them up but, the 44-40 was a 200-210 gr. bullet over 40 grs. of BP. The 38-40 was a 180 gr. bullet over 40 grs. of BP. The bullet diameters were .427 for 44-40 and .401 for the 38-40. The 38-40 had a slight ballistic advantage.
I doubt things were any different back then. Popularity didn't need a reason or facts to back it up.
I found it amusing that when one of the vaunted 10mm cartridges was introduced a gun writer of the time pointed out that the 38-40 was producing the same ballistics in 1874.
|
|
jeffh
.375 Atomic
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by jeffh on Feb 22, 2024 20:19:12 GMT -5
... I found it amusing that when one of the vaunted 10mm cartridges was introduced a gun writer of the time pointed out that the 38-40 was producing the same ballistics in 1874. I remember that. It actually conferred some credibility upon the "vaunted 10mm" in question for me.
Taking a cynical stab at it, I'd say the marketing geniuses of the day were at work spinning some form of image which made both the 38-40 and 44-40 look like THE ultimate rifle cartridge simultaneously, while tales from the woods deemed those "hard-shooting" guns blessed, whichever cartridge for which they may have been chambered.
If it were me, I could close my eyes and pick one and feel I was equally well-armed in either case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Encore64 on Feb 22, 2024 20:22:25 GMT -5
... I found it amusing that when one of the vaunted 10mm cartridges was introduced a gun writer of the time pointed out that the 38-40 was producing the same ballistics in 1874. I remember that. It actually conferred some credibility upon the "vaunted 10mm" in question for me.
Taking a cynical stab at it, I'd say the marketing geniuses of the day were at work spinning some form of image which made both the 38-40 and 44-40 look like THE ultimate rifle cartridge simultaneously, while tales from the woods deemed those "hard-shooting" guns blessed, whichever cartridge for which they may have been chambered.
If it were me, I could close my eyes and pick one and feel I was equally well-armed in either case.
AARRRGGG... Pick One??? No Jeff, wrong forum. We pick both... |
|
jeffh
.375 Atomic
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by jeffh on Feb 22, 2024 20:55:08 GMT -5
AARRRGGG... Pick One??? No Jeff, wrong forum. We pick both...
Ahhhh, long week.
I was being lazy.
|
|
|
|
Post by cas on Feb 22, 2024 21:01:34 GMT -5
Options. More things to sell.  |
|
|
|
Post by bigbrowndog on Feb 22, 2024 21:39:06 GMT -5
One well known, handgun instructor and Scout rifle designer held the 38-40 in high regard as a man killer in its day. In the same breath, did not care for the anemic 40sw. A fellow instructor and employee of his took great pleasure in pointing out the two share ballistic performance, and you cannot highly regard one and look down your nose at the other. However considering he helped bring the 10mm to fruition only to see it “replaced” by the half pint 40sw. Some animosity was evidently present.
Of the two would choose 38-40 over 44-40.
Just my .02 pfennig
Trapr
|
|
sharps4590
.30 Stingray
I'm a Christian first, husband and father next then a patriotic, veteran, firearms aficionado.
Posts: 362
|
Post by sharps4590 on Feb 23, 2024 8:20:26 GMT -5
I have experience with the 44-40 and have liked the cartridge since my first back in the 80's. I still have a '73 and a Schofield so chambered. I always wanted to play with the 38-40 but for the longest time none were available, except for originals. I did own a '73 in 38-40 for a very short time and the bore was as rough as a sewer pipe. I couldn't get it to shoot but that was no fault of the cartridge. I traded it and haven't had one since, mores the pity.
|
|
|
|
Post by marlin35 on Feb 23, 2024 8:42:35 GMT -5
One advantage I can think of, although slight, would be more bullets cast per pound. This would help stretch supplies a little farther although like I said, not much. But if I was lugging lead around the back country and casting over a campfire I might be grateful for however many more projectiles I would get per pound of weight I’ve been carrying around.
|
|
Fowler
.401 Bobcat
Posts: 3,671
|
Post by Fowler on Feb 23, 2024 10:31:08 GMT -5
Eh I thin it is like anything else why does one guy like a 40 S&W over a 45 ACP? Personal choice.
The 38/40 with blackpowder load will shoot a touch flatter, the more tapered case it might have been a little less prone o
To blackpowder fouling but I have ZERO experience here so just speculating.
I think the 38/40 is a pretty cool cartridge and falls in a bit of a unique place amoungst the cartridges where the 44/40 and the 44sp seem to be pretty much twins and the 44sp brass is a bit easier to reload and obtain.
To each their own.
|
|
|
|
Post by revolvercranker on Feb 23, 2024 11:53:58 GMT -5
One well known, handgun instructor and Scout rifle designer held the 38-40 in high regard as a man killer in its day. In the same breath, did not care for the anemic 40sw. A fellow instructor and employee of his took great pleasure in pointing out the two share ballistic performance, and you cannot highly regard one and look down your nose at the other. However considering he helped bring the 10mm to fruition only to see it “replaced” by the half pint 40sw. Some animosity was evidently present. Of the two would choose 38-40 over 44-40. Just my .02 pfennig Trapr The 40 SW is officially dead! With so many advancements in the 9mm, both bullet technology and more potent loading, it now surpasses the FBI requirement. You can tell by all the places selling police trade ins, most Glocks and Sig, a 40 SW Glock can be had for around $300. Too boot a gunrag recently came out with cartridges that didn't cut the mustard and those being 45 GAP by Glock, the 40SW, the 357 Sig, the 32 acp. Actually the 40 SW isn't a bad round. What supposedly killed it was the recoil because they built them on a 9mm frame and the 40 really does have more recoil then a 9mm. One last thing there a guy that sells once fired brass on another forum and can hardly give 40 SW away. Seems not many people either don't load for it or don't want it. What about the others I just mentioned? The 357 Sig too much muzzle blast. The 45 GAP, too much recoil on the light guns Glock put it on. They also said the 30 Super is on the fence for not making it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cholla on Feb 23, 2024 12:02:14 GMT -5
I found it amusing that when one of the vaunted 10mm cartridges was introduced a gun writer of the time pointed out that the 38-40 was producing the same ballistics in 1874. This is beyond amusing. The hot topic among plastic loving handgunners today is what a GREAT bear defense cartridge the 10mm Auto is! I've even seen where people are shooting game such as Cape Buffalo and Nilgai with them. Now, I am the proud owner of a 138 year old '73 Winchester rifle chambered in 38 WCF. It uses roughly the same diameter bullet as the 10mm and I cast a 193 gr. flat point for mine. Loaded over a compressed charge of Swiss 3Fg that 193 gr. bullet averages 1425 fps, and with Tier 1 loads of either Unique or Herco, 1350 fps; both loads exceeding the ballistics of the much-worshipped 10mm Auto. Can you imagine the guffaws if a hunter showed up in Africa with a lever 38 WCF with which to hunt Cape Buffalo? Or an outdoorsman who decided to carry a 130 year old lever action for defense against grizzlies? Since I was a child 50 years ago I've read over and over how the 38-40 is just barely adequate for deer, yet now we're told that the 10mm will fell a 1500 lb. bull! As to the advantage 38 WCF vs. 44 WCF, I own both and have used both, sparingly for deer and the such. If one had an advantage over the other, I would have to say it'd be the larger caliber simply because its bullets make a larger hole. |
|
|
|
Post by revolvercranker on Feb 23, 2024 12:39:57 GMT -5
Nobody mentioned that both the cartridges spoken of here are bottlenecked the stories about them backing hard against the recoil shield and making the cylinder difficult to rotate. I don't own either so no experience with that. Let's hear from you all that do own them. Any truth to that?
|
|
