Why are there no 40 cal Revolvers?

[M. De Land]

I remember seeing a 401 PowerMag revolver in the old Herter's catalogs in the 1960's

I had a 41 Mag Ruger BlackHawk for a number of years before a break in and theft. Bullet diameter was .410.

 

[Terrier]

A dozen is a sacred number. Twelve tribes of Israel, Twelve Tablets of laws for the Romans, Twelve months of the year, twelve jurors and so on.
A Twelve bore is pretty popular. Twelve ball to the pound. Two dozen ball to the pound is .58, four dozen .44 and eight dozen, .36
Can’t prove it but I think this was part of caliber size popularity
.40 doesn’t fit in.

That’s a very interesting and plausible theory. At the same time, it doesn’t explain why there was such a plethora of 40 cal rifles in the early 1800s. It bears considering, tho..

 

[Terrier]

I think the civil war was the reason we jumped from the .36 cal ball in revolvers to the .44 cal as the main stay. The Army needed more power to break up cavalry charges (horse shooting not just man stopping) and .50cal was to large to get in a reasonable size six shot revolver.
The Walker had already proven the bore size against the Comanche and Apache and the Besimeyer steel process had made smaller size revolvers in.44 cal safe and practical . The Walker was made of iron not steel and so had to be huge to most of time contain the pressure of 44 cal heavy loads. It was not practical or very safe for the Army Cavalry and officer use. Many Walkers blew up cylinders from the heavy charges of black powder I have read.
I wonder if a .44 could be lined to .41 cal safely. It would certainly be a might thin barrel liner I'm thinking so probably not safe or practical.

The stopping power for wartime use was likely the reason, but in the reproduction era, and with the popularity of the 40 cal in rifles, you’d think one of the manufacturers would have found a market for a .40 revolver.

It probably wouldn’t be period correct for reinactments, but it would be practical.

 

[nkbj]

TDM, I checked out the 40cal and the lower end loads are safe but the muzzle energy is lacking . . . !!!

(tiny bit o humor ) Anyway,
I'm sure it would be a "cool" mod to end up with a .40cal cap gun . . . and why not, Sam had one!!!! Along the same line. I had a customer years ago send a Walker that had been changed to .36 cal. He said it was definitely a SCREAMER!!! So, changing calibers is definitely not new. It's not something I would take on but they are interesting.!!!

Mike

Hey Mike, been trying to contact you about a steel frame 1851 Pietta .36 with wiggle in the arbor. Do you have a technique to cure that?

 

[nkbj]

The stopping power for wartime use was likely the reason, but in the reproduction era, and with the popularity of the 40 cal in rifles, you’d think one of the manufacturers would have found a market for a .40 revolver.

It probably wouldn’t be period correct for reinactments, but it would be practical.

Yeah you're right.
Wars have a tendency towards getting manufacturers to follow the money. If the 19th Century US army or the navy had wanted something other than .36 and .44 then that's what Italy would have been shipping in the 20th.

 

[earlwb]

I suspect that the .40 cal rifles probably came about because the smaller calibers were freshened or rebored out a few times. That was a popular method way back then to extend the life of a rifle. They used to do it at the rendezvous they used to have back then too. They had a couple three gunsmiths at those who would freshen the bores and make new bullet molds for them. That was how so many of the rifles were odd or weird calibers too.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Like @azmntman said, you could certainly have one made. Doesn't take much to punch a .38 out to a .40, and .38 is what the ".36" cal revolvers are. Maybe Lodgewood could help or @45D might have some suggestions.

ACTUALLY that's probably quite doable...., IF the .36 is a .375 ball because it gets swaged into the cylinder, and then swaged onto the rifling when it is launched through a barrel, then opening the chambers to .380-.385 to accept a .390-.395 ball should work. Then get the barrel opened slightly, and you'd be in business.

LD

 

[Whitworth]

My guess is like the .40 Short and Weak in the long run it proved unneeded between the 9mm and .45. Handguns are dissuaders. The threat of being shot back then was if not immediately fatal was still likely due to infection so a hole between man shooting .36 and horse shooting .44 wasn't really needed. YMMV

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I suspect that the .40 cal rifles probably came about because the smaller calibers were freshened or rebored out a few times. That was a popular method way back then to extend the life of a rifle. They used to do it at the rendezvous they used to have back then too. They had a couple three gunsmiths at those who would freshen the bores and make new bullet molds for them. That was how so many of the rifles were odd or weird calibers too.

From what I've seen the .40 was an "Eastern" caliber and seems to be more of a 19th century thing, used by folks even after cartridge guns were becoming the norm, as it was very inexpensive to shoot, and would put game on the table. .40 survived in Appalachia into the 20th century, from what I've read.

LD

 

[earlwb]

ACTUALLY that's probably quite doable...., IF the .36 is a .375 ball because it gets swaged into the cylinder, and then swaged onto the rifling when it is launched through a barrel, then opening the chambers to .380-.385 to accept a .390-.395 ball should work. Then get the barrel opened slightly, and you'd be in business.

LD

Considering how thin the cylinder chambers are already on many of these guns I doubt it would be safe to shoot if you bore out the .36 caliber cylinders to .40 caliber. Now if you could get a blank .44 cylinder and bore it for .40 caliber then you might have something.

 

[45D]

Hey Mike, been trying to contact you about a steel frame 1851 Pietta .36 with wiggle in the arbor. Do you have a technique to cure that?

PM sent.

Mike

 

[Bad Karma]

It’s not a problem at all. Colt did a prototype on a 51 Navy type in .40 but it did not fly. They moved on to the .44 1860.

 

[nkbj]

Considering how thin the cylinder chambers are already on many of these guns I doubt it would be safe to shoot if you bore out the .36 caliber cylinders to .40 caliber. Now if you could get a blank .44 cylinder and bore it for .40 caliber then you might have something.

The wall thickness on my .40 caliber 1851 was calculated for comparison to existing designs prior to commissioning the work as the only valid metric for acceptability. The talented professional gunsmith who did the chambers and rifling of the barrel did not produce an unsafe piece. As a matter of fact, the wall thickness on the .40 made from a .36 is greater than that found on 1851 frame based .44's, thus producing a thicker wall for an even smaller diameter containment of pressure. As lagniappe the removal of that amount of steel from the cylinder and barrel produced a little better weight for the 1851, a piece that's widely acclaimed for being sweet in the hand.

The .41 caliber 1858 was just something I decided to try out due to interest in experimenting with off the shelf heavier bullet molds.

 

[Ballshooter]

I am perfectly happy with my .36

 

[springfield art]

I think you guys started something!

A dozen is a sacred number. Twelve tribes of Israel, Twelve Tablets of laws for the Romans, Twelve months of the year, twelve jurors and so on.
A Twelve bore is pretty popular. Twelve ball to the pound. Two dozen ball to the pound is .58, four dozen .44 and eight dozen, .36
Can’t prove it but I think this was part of caliber size popularity
.40 doesn’t fit in.

You're on to something. Makes sense.

 

[Terrier]

I think you guys started something!

You're on to something. Makes sense.

I hope so! Wouldn't that be nice?

 

[nkbj]

I am perfectly happy with my .36

I like my .36's also.

 

[Terrier]

ACTUALLY that's probably quite doable...., IF the .36 is a .375 ball because it gets swaged into the cylinder, and then swaged onto the rifling when it is launched through a barrel, then opening the chambers to .380-.385 to accept a .390-.395 ball should work. Then get the barrel opened slightly, and you'd be in business.

LD

Your math seems very correct, Sir! I measured a number of my .390 RBs and the majority were .391 to 393, so .380 should be just about right. And that isn’t much of an increase, so the cylinder shouldn’t have any problem accommodating the alteration.

I ordered an Uberti 1858 Remington Navy .36 this evening to serve as the sacrificial lamb. Now the real chore begins… to find a smithy to do the re-bore work.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Your math seems very correct, Sir! I measured a number of my .390 RBs and the majority were .391 to 393, so .380 should be just about right. And that isn’t much of an increase, so the cylinder shouldn’t have any problem accommodating the alteration.

I ordered an Uberti 1858 Remington Navy .36 this evening to serve as the sacrificial lamb. Now the real chore begins… to find a smithy to do the re-bore work.

You might see if Bob Hoyt, who reams and then rifles barrels when they get roached from rust, might be able to do it for you.

LD

 

[CaptainVane]

If I can't kill it with a .36, then I'll kill it with a .44. If not then I've gotten myself into some sort of trouble where I deserve to die.

And if .44 doesn’t work, grab the shotgun. Wasn’t that in Unfogiven?