FACTORY midframe .38-40 or .44-40 possible?

[gak]

Preface: talking Ruger factory, and 6-shot only here.

Don't know if I ever saw a "conclusion" to this discussion.

Someone else's current post inquiring about production numbers on the original/old Vaquero .38-40/.40 convertible reminded me: A few years back on RF we had a lot of discussion/speculation about whether a factory MIDframe convertible was feasible in this (-40) caliber--and hence convertible combination (or .44-40, hence in combo with .44 Sp). I don't know whether this "argument" was ever definitively put to bed.

The argument against was that there wasn't enough space for the rims for SAMMI spec to consistently be guaranteed for a factory application. The argument continued that while .45s, if course, have been made and indeed have been the "core" round in the SAA platform--which should suggest to the lay person that the smaller caliber(s) certainly would fit, at the rim the -40 cartridges have been stated to have larger rims (diameters) than the .45.

The confusion I still have is that Colt and virtually all clones have regularly produced these "-40" calibers in the SAA design since 1876...and that IIRC, the Ruger midframe cylinder is actually, if marginally, LARGER in diameter than the Colt spec....but that the likes of Bowen, Clements, etc, could do it as they had more latitude/didnt have to account for any and all possible cases (shells) out there--tothe degree factory (Ruger) would need to.

The "problem" I continue to have is that I have yet to hear anyone having a problem loading virtually any brand cartridge or brass of these "-40" calibers into a custom (but still 6 shot) gun or, again, of course virtually in any Colt SAA or clone.

What say you? A SIX SHOT .38-40 (hence .40 S&W convertible) or .44-40 aux cylinder'd .44 Special midframe possible, even if just via Davidson's, Lipseys or the like?

 

[WIL TERRY]

IT most certainly is so !!! I have two of 'em in COLT sixguns, one a NF 7 1/2" 44SPL/44-40, [ the other is an original SAA 45ACP/45...think about that for a second ] and the other is a RUGER 3-SCREW 4 5/8" 10MM/38-40.
THESE are ALL medium frame guns.

I must say though that the whys-'n'-wherefores of anyone paying U.S. of A. money to end up with a 40S&W chambering in a fine SA sixgun escapes me entirely. That makes no sense to me at all. That borders upon the silly IMNHO.
And so it goes....

 

[gak]

IT most certainly is so !!! I have two of 'em in COLT sixguns, one a NF 7 1/2" 44SPL/44-40, [ the other is an original SAA 45ACP/45...think about that for a second ] and the other is a RUGER 3-SCREW 4 5/8" 10MM/38-40.
THESE are ALL medium frame guns.

I must say though that the whys-'n'-wherefores of anyone paying U.S. of A. money to end up with a 40S&W chambering in a fine SA sixgun escapes me entirely. That makes no sense to me at all. That borders upon the silly IMNHO.
And so it goes....

Wil, indeed- I KNOW it's possible both via factory Colts (and clones) as they've been offered as factory for years...and that custom Rugers are as well. Bowen, etc, are more than happy to oblige...it's been suggested that they don't have to meet the same consistency (of cartridge) standards that Ruger itself would. The question is--what about FACTORY RUGER MIDframe?! It has been suggested that--from a COMPANY perspective--that the answer would be "no" because they could not guarantee consistently that all manufacturers' cartridges would fit--consistently enough for them to make it.

THAT is the question. What makes the Ruger MIDframe different, i.e. less capable, than Colt (or Italian clones), when the Ruger cylinder measures slightly GREATER--at least vs Colt?

As to .40S&W. Same reason as the .45 ACP cylinder...cheaper target/plinking..40S&W's everywhere.

EDIT. I'm not arguing whether there's enough market for Ruger to make these catalog; different discussion. I would think, however, a no brainer as special distribution, and/or in the case of the .44-40--a convertible cylinder offered with the .44 Special--like the other manufacturers regularly do--or at least as Ruger store purchase, even if they require Ruger factory fitment...IF it's technically feasible from a "corporate perspective." (Re the suggested consistency standards mentioned above)

 

[Olsherm]

I have a New Vaquero(midframe) that was rechambered from .357 to 38/40 by Clements. I have no problems with different brands of brass that I have noticed. However I have only had Starline,winchester and one other I think.

 

[ndcowboy]

I'd love to add a 44-40 cylinder to my 44 special. It doesn't get more original old west than a 44-40.

 

[Mike Armstrong]

Ruger's initial offering of the .44-40 on the Old Vaquero was probably more trouble for them than it was worth (NOT the fault of the cartridge).

I know that CAS people who use .44-40 rifles hanker for handguns in the same caliber, but don't most CAS shooters just get .45s for both?

I LIKE both .38-40 and .44-40 and shoot both, but doubt that there are enough like me to make it a profitable venture, especially in this economic climate.

 

[CraigC]

Make mine a 7½" flat-top .38-40, please.

 

[Tx gun runner]

I own 4 Vaquero in 44-40 , 2 of them I send back to Ruger to build them correctly . The last year model where perfect and are super shooters . It is a shame they learned how to build them , then they stop making them like the 357 MAX .

 

[BlkHawk73]

Possible, certainly. Likely...doubtful, unless it were to be a distributor thing. The .38-40 has too small of a following and the .44-40...well, that didn't last long before either. Look at all the 44 Specials that are so easily available after all the "we need one" clamor.

 

[gak]

Possible, certainly. Likely...doubtful, unless it were to be a distributor thing. The .38-40 has too small of a following and the .44-40...well, that didn't last long before either. Look at all the 44 Specials that are so easily available after all the "we need one" clamor.

Again, I'm not questioning (well I am, but...) the marketing side of things, just corporate engineering feasibility or if you prefer "factory engineering viability." There's no question it technically can be done...but the "possibility" *from Ruger's perspective* is what at least a few of our very learned colleagues here questioned strongly--based on the rim size issue and their feeling Ruger couldn't guarantee all "-40" rims out there would fit,...already knowing that--yes, Bowen, Clements, etc, can--and do--perform such custom conversions all the time, as a few here have found out first-hand. The argument was these custom makers don't have to "guarantee" all rims like was opined Ruger would.

S0, the question remains, has this speculated concern by Ruger ever been verified--or does it remain just speculation? If there's really no rim problem after all from a "corporate-engineering perspective," then why have we not heard--since the new MIDframe introduction(s)--even a remote hint of a) a special distribution of MIDframe .38-40 convertibles--which marketing wise does seem a no brainer (instant collectible if nothing else! (And, yes, I know the history on their first attempt) or
b) auxilliary .44-40 cylinder at least optionally available with .44 Special purchases--as virtually all other manufacturers do. Tiz a puzzlement.

Blkhawk73, your point about continued easy availability (of .44 NVs anyway) after all the clamoring is well taken. I was one of those ballyhooing,...but at least was fortunate enough to actually follow-through on a few

EDIT: I should add that the above-mentioned RF colleagues did some pretty exacting measurements on this rim versus cylinder diameter (ie space available) aspect and pronounced that an issue indeed would/could present itself to Ruger. I don't know that I'm questioning those measurements--they are what they are--as much as the aspect that the Ruger MIDframe cylinder actually appears to be a skosh bigger--as first described by our friends over at Gunblast--than Colt and clones (except USFA perhaps), so what is the issue when those companies have been making the "-40" chamberings for aeons, presumably without "issue"?

Really not trying to make as federal a case--ha--out of this as it appears just that it really is a continuing curiosity...and hoping that Ruger itself will chime in on this at some point (yes, I know...they already have by not producing any "-40"s!)

 

[CraigC]

It has been said that there is a potential issue with rim clearance. The big WCF's have a bigger rim than any other comparable cartridge. The issue is that they may interfere with each other. I really don't know if it is as much an issue as proclaimed, nor do I know the difference in distance between the centerline of the cylinder and the centerline of each chamber between a Colt SAA and mid-frame Ruger. The thought is that while it may work fine on 99% of guns produced, tolerance stacking may work against a small number of guns. While we can, as individuals, let our gunsmith know that we will make use of a particular brand of brass that will have a consistent rim diameter that is known to work, a manufacturer must ensure that their gun will work with ALL factory ammunition. It would be very interesting to find out how the math works out on this issue.

 

[mindustrial]

A quick glance online tells me a 38wcf rim diamter is .525" and a 45 Colt rim dia. is .512". Are these numbers correct?

How much clearance is there on the new .45 flattops? Is there at least .015" to .020" clearance between the rims when the .45 cases are all in the cyclinder?

How about from the rim to the cylinder "hub"... at least .010" clearance?

Am I simplifying too much, anything else?

 

[Hondo44]

Can anyone please show me a 44-40 cartridge brand (or 38-40) that will not fit 6 in a Colt single action? Because I have never found it and have shot every 44-40 round known to mankind. Are the rims close, yes.

Fact: all brands fit in my 44-40 Colt SAAs
Fact: the Ruger mid frame cylinders are .020" + or - larger diameter than Colt's
Fact: The chamber centerline diameters on Colt and Ruger MFs are the same
Fact: therefore the larger Ruger cylinders only add thickness to the outer chamber walls.
Fact: I fitted a Colt 44-40 cylinder to my Ruger FT and the chambers align and it shoots as accurately as .44 Spls.
Fact: since 44-40s will chamber in 45 Colt chambers, fill your mid frame ruger 45 Colt with 44-40s of any brand and you will not find any rim interference.

CONCLUSIONS:
Fact: there is no issue.
Fact: Ruger (and all manufs. for that matter) decide to build guns (that are feasible to build) on one main basis: what is the market for it? If it's deemed they won't sell enough of them, they won't build it, period. Exception: 'exclusives' for Lipsey's, Davidson's, etc.

 

[WARD]

I would truly like to see one of the special distributor purchases of either of these two historic calibers - but I want adjustable sights! I personnaly favor the 38-40 as I have four rifles (92 Win, 94 Marlin and 2- 73 Wins) and am in the market for the "right" 38-40 handgun. I have a 357 Anniversary FT stashed away and am considering the custom route but don't know if I want to invest the money for the conversion.

My choice would be a 4 5/8" 38-40 flat top in blue finish with it's regular xr3 grip. I would go with the 40 S&W conversion but could live without if necessary. If it was made in any barrel length or even in stainless, I would still buy it - maybe even two!!!

Ward

 

[Boxhead]

My Harton built 38 WCF has no problems with either Starline or Winchester brass. It is built on an OM 357 Flattop, a 5 1/2" gun with the orginal cylinder rechambered.

 

[Hondo44]

I would truly like to see one of the special distributor purchases of either of these two historic calibers - but I want adjustable sights! I personnaly favor the 38-40 as I have four rifles (92 Win, 94 Marlin and 2- 73 Wins) and am in the market for the "right" 38-40 handgun. I have a 357 Anniversary FT stashed away and am considering the custom route but don't know if I want to invest the money for the conversion.

My choice would be a 4 5/8" 38-40 flat top in blue finish with it's regular xr3 grip. I would go with the 40 S&W conversion but could live without if necessary. If it was made in any barrel length or even in stainless, I would still buy it - maybe even two!!!

Ward

That is about the easiest conversion one can do w/o having to go the expensive custom route.

Buy and install or have installed a 38-40 Colt SAA cylinder and barrel. The 3rd gen Colt barrels use the same thread as the Ruger: 24 TPI. Grind off the blade front sight and mount a Ruger FT front target sight base and ramp blade. You can mount it with a single screw like the Ruger Super Single Sixes since you're not using a magnum caliber.

The cylinder bolt notches on the Colt cylinder are wider than the Rugers. But it's irrelevant because with a properly timed cylinder hand, the Ruger bolt locks up tight against the back (deep) side of the notch.

 

[gak]

Can anyone please show me a 44-40 cartridge brand (or 38-40) that will not fit 6 in a Colt single action? Because I have never found it and have shot every 44-40 round known to mankind. Are the rims close, yes.

Fact: all brands fit in my 44-40 Colt SAAs
Fact: the Ruger mid frame cylinders are .020" + or - larger diameter than Colt's
Fact: The chamber centerline diameters on Colt and Ruger MFs are the same
Fact: therefore the larger Ruger cylinders only add thickness to the outer chamber walls.
Fact: I fitted a Colt 44-40 cylinder to my Ruger FT and the chambers align and it shoots as accurately as .44 Spls.
Fact: since 44-40s will chamber in 45 Colt chambers, fill your mid frame ruger 45 Colt with 44-40s of any brand and you will not find any rim interference.

CONCLUSIONS:
Fact: there is no issue.
Fact: Ruger (and all manufs. for that matter) decide to build guns (that are feasible to build) on one main basis: what is the market for it? If it's deemed they won't sell enough of them, they won't build it, period. Exception: 'exclusives' for Lipsey's, Davidson's, etc.

Precisely (it seems ) . Hondo, good write up. The spare .44-40 cylinder on the cowboy (NV) .44 Specials would seem to have been a no brainer as they were just special distribution to begin with. Maybe they figured the way they were pricing them without was a stretch to begin with, and/or traditional .44-40 folk would complain it wasn't .427?? The way I figure it, it would at least be a way to get a .44-40 out there for them that wouldn't otherwise likely happen on the midframe. Re .40, there are a lot of auto owners out there that might like to mix it up with the cowboy round and vice versa. Etc, etc. Ah oh, I said I wasn't getting into the marketing angle on things!!

 

[Hondo44]

My Harton built 38 WCF has no problems with either Starline or Winchester brass. It is built on an OM 357 Flattop, a 5 1/2" gun with the orginal cylinder rechambered.

Boxhead,

Good point. And New Model mid frame cylinders can be fitted to and function perfectly in OM 3 screw frames.

One of my 44 conversions on an old model FT mid frame w/ NM 44 cylinder. This is the one I have a Colt 44-40 cylinder (not shown) fitted to:

 

[CraigC]

The "expensive custom route" will not cost much more, if any, than a cobbled together Colt/Ruger hybrid. It typically costs $150 for a rechamber and $150 for a rebore of the factory barrel. Or you can have a new premium barrel installed for about $50 more. Installing a barrel is not a job for the neophyte and if you have to buy the tools, you're money ahead to pay a gunsmith to do it properly. Then you don't have a Ruger with Colt-marked parts.

 

[Hondo44]

Precisely (it seems ) . Hondo, good write up. The spare .44-40 cylinder on the cowboy (NV) .44 Specials would seem to have been a no brainer as they were just special distribution to begin with. Maybe they figured the way they were pricing them without was a stretch to begin with, and/or traditional .44-40 folk would complain it wasn't .427?? The way I figure it, it would at least be a way to get a .44-40 out there for them that wouldn't otherwise likely happen on the midframe. Re .40, there are a lot of auto owners out there that might like to mix it up with the cowboy round and vice versa. Etc, etc. Ah oh, I said I wasn't getting into the marketing angle on things!!

gak,
I think you're exactly right though. One can not separate the marketing angle from the discussion. I think it's just too germaine to the issue of why doesn't Ruger or why didn't they.

 

[Hondo44]

The "expensive custom route" will not cost much more, if any, than a cobbled together Colt/Ruger hybrid. It typically costs $150 for a rechamber and $150 for a rebore of the factory barrel. Or you can have a new premium barrel installed for about $50 more. Installing a barrel is not a job for the neophyte and if you have to buy the tools, you're money ahead to pay a gunsmith to do it properly. Then you don't have a Ruger with Colt-marked parts.

Yes Craig makes a point, it's going to be a completely different choice depending on one's skill level and or finances. I wouldn't do it if you have to resort to cobbling together. I would remove the Colt wording and leave the correct caliber marking on the barrel and since it would need rebluing at that point I would solder on the Ruger sight. From Brownell's a new Colt cylinder and barrel would cost $167.86 and $197.49 respectively. But they can be found used for much less especially if rebluing the barrel is part of the plan. A Ruger front sight is about $6. See 44-40 below to get an extra cylinder from Ruger that would have to be rechambered. Then you still have your original cylinder and barrel or you can get the original cylinder rechambered for the .40 S&W/10mm for $200 plus shipping at Clements.

So let's compare:

Do it yourself single cylinder conversion is $256 w/used cyl. and bar. Or w/new Colt parts $371.32 plus $150 and $200 for extra Ruger cyl/ rechambered.

If one doesn't do his own work there's added gunsmith services of about $150. So about $406 using used parts; $521.32 w/new parts.

A bowen 38-40 conversion basic package is $595 plus shipping and no other options but top notch precision work with about 5 months wait, a real bargain! Or $945 w/extra cylinder in 40/10mm.

Clements conversion is $695 plus shipping and about 6 months. That's with no other options but even so you will get a line bored cyl and precision tolerances that will make it an excellent shooter! If you want another cyl chambered in 40/10 it's $200 with your supplied second cylinder plus a little more for fitting for about $1045.

Most options above double or more the price of the base gun except doing it oneself for one cylinder. And more than double it with an extra convertible cylinder.

44-40 extra cylinder:
An extra 44-40 cylinder for a 44 Spl. gun would be cheaper. I already had a Colt 44-40 cylinder for mine But one could send a 44 Spl FT back to Ruger for an extra 44 Spl cylinder fitted to it for about $150 plus shipping. That's the only way Ruger will sell you a cylinder. Then send it to Clements for a rebore to 44-40 at $200 (no fitting needed) for a total of about $400. Could probably get the second cylinder rechambered cheaper by someone else.

Well there you have some idea of costs. Yep, sure would be cheaper if Ruger and Lipsey's, etc., would do it!!! But I'm too old to wait for something so iffy.

 

[CraigC]

You need to look at Clements' Jeff Quinn special, which is $595 and you cannot ignore the fact that it comes with a custom front sight. Personally, I would never have any level of custom gun built without a custom front sight. It is imminently better than any front sight Ruger ever produced. Plus that $6 Ruger front sight has no finish on it.

So $595 done right with a premium barrel and custom front sight, correct markings and full reblue.

Or $406 with used parts and a factory front sight. Living with obvious finish wear and Colt markings or paying additional for bluing services.

Or $521 with new Colt parts and a factory front sight. Living with Colt markings or paying additional for bluing services.

I think I know which one I would pick.

You also can't rechamber a .44Spl cylinder to .44-40. A .44-40 reamer won't clean up a .44Spl chamber. It would have to be a .357 cylinder.

 

[CraigC]

PS, I'm pretty sure that 3rd generation Colt barrel threads are 28tpi, 2nd is 24tpi. You definitely want a 3rd generation barrel, if you go that route.

 

[gak]

PS, I'm pretty sure that 3rd generation Colt barrel threads are 28tpi, 2nd is 24tpi. You definitely want a 3rd generation barrel, if you go that route.

1st's and 2nd's are 20, 3rd's - 24. I've had a 3rd barrel cut into (meaning worked for) a 2nd Gen, but won't work the other way around IIRC...so re the Ruger, yes definitely the 3rd gen barrel (and...if I were to go that route, I don't think I'd leave the barrel caliber marking either, assuming you were having the Ruger marking redone anyway on the frame--to re-match Ruger style).

 

[CraigC]

You're right, I remembered it wrong. I bought two 4¾" New Frontier barrels for installation onto Rugers and found out after the fact that what was sold as 3rd generation barrels were actually 2nd. The interesting thing I learned from Eddie Janis through that was that while short barrelled 2nd generation New Frontiers were more rare, barrels were much more plentiful with little demand. Whereas 3rd generation New Frontiers with short barrels were more common, barrels were much more scarce and demand was much higher. Nobody wanted my barrels so I had to return them.

 

[Lee Martin]

I'm going be converting a 50th 357 to 38-40 this winter. I'll post photos and data as it progresses.

 

[gak]

I'm going be converting a 50th 357 to 38-40 this winter. I'll post photos and data as it progresses.

Please do. I'd love to have a .38-40/.40S&W conversion done on my early New Vaq .357. Maybe even make it a triple with 10mm. The gun almost got .44'd, but then Ruger came to the rescue, so it's been looking to take up a new cause! (But I admit I wish Ruger'd beat me to it again).