Dreaming100Straight
New member
Walmart has some ammo that is marked on the box as Winchester 44 Rem Magnum and the reference to Rem through us. Can it be used in a Freedom Arms 44 Magnum? From what I read on a Wiki it is the same thing.
Rem .44 Magnum same as .44 Magnum?
- Thread starter Dreaming100Straight
- Start date
What James said.
The original name was the .44 Remington Magnum.
There are lots of different stories about how the .44 Mag came about. The one I like best (which may or may not be what really happened) is Elmer Keith took his hot .44 Special load to Remington, told them S&W was going to make the guns, and could they make this ammo, oh, and make it .1 longer so it won't chamber in .44 Specials....Remington said, essentially, "we can do that"...
Then Elmer went to S&W and told them, "Remington is going to make this, can you make a gun for it?" And S&W said "we can wrap a gun around anything Remington makes..."
And so, the legend (and a good story) was born.
No matter how it really happened, it was and is the .44 Remington Magnum, and is referred to as such, when the full name is used.
The original name was the .44 Remington Magnum.
There are lots of different stories about how the .44 Mag came about. The one I like best (which may or may not be what really happened) is Elmer Keith took his hot .44 Special load to Remington, told them S&W was going to make the guns, and could they make this ammo, oh, and make it .1 longer so it won't chamber in .44 Specials....Remington said, essentially, "we can do that"...
Then Elmer went to S&W and told them, "Remington is going to make this, can you make a gun for it?" And S&W said "we can wrap a gun around anything Remington makes..."
And so, the legend (and a good story) was born.
No matter how it really happened, it was and is the .44 Remington Magnum, and is referred to as such, when the full name is used.
Dreaming100Straight
New member
Thanks guys. I was getting some ammo for myself at Wally World and this guy and I were trying to figure out if the Rem 44 Mag they had was what he needed. I only wish I had to look for something to feed a 44 of my own.
Whether that story is true its a good one.
Whether that story is true its a good one.
Bob Wright
New member
.44AMP:
Your story is essentially true, though somewhat more involved. From what I've read over the years, someone found an empty .44 Mag case in Remington's scrap and took it to Ruger. Through some industrial espionage Ruger got wind of the developement and had their Blackhawk ready almost beating S&W to the introduction.
How much of what I've read is true, I don't know, but interesting none the less.
Bob Wright
Your story is essentially true, though somewhat more involved. From what I've read over the years, someone found an empty .44 Mag case in Remington's scrap and took it to Ruger. Through some industrial espionage Ruger got wind of the developement and had their Blackhawk ready almost beating S&W to the introduction.
How much of what I've read is true, I don't know, but interesting none the less.
Bob Wright
It is the .41 Rem Mag if you want to be fully correct.
The rivalry between gun makers goes waaay back, and sometimes cost them more than they expected. The classic rivalries are Remington vs. Winchester (rifles, primarily but shotguns too..) and Colt vs. S&W.
Looking back at the history, we see that, for a LONG time, Remington would not chamber their rifles in Winchester cartridges, and Winchester would not chamber theirs for Remington's.
And Colt wouldn't make a pistol for a S&W cartridge, sort of. Anything with the S&W name would not be put in a Colt gun, as Colt didn't want "S&W" being marked on their guns.
SO, what they did, rather than take the route Winchester and Remington were on (competing cartridges that were essentially the same performance niche, but different cases), what Colt did was to make "Colt" cartridges, dimensionally the same as the S&W ones, but loaded with a different style of bullet (usually a flat point of some variety). And putting "Colt" in the name of "their" cartridge.
Look at the pre-.38Special .38s & .32s and you see this several times. Not every one, but several. Eventually Colt stopped bothering with their own "cartridge" (which was actually only a specific loading), and simply dropped the "S&W" from the cartridge name marked on a Colt gun.
This is, essentially, how the .38 S&W Special became the "simple" .38 Special.
(don't confuse the .38 S&W Special with the .38 S&W, they are different cartridge cases)
Colt made a few rifles in the early days of cartridges (which weren't hugely popular), then, according to gun legend, entered into a "gentleman's agreement" with Winchester. Colt would stay out of the rifle business, if S&W stayed out of the handgun business.
Real or not, this became the tradition, and it lasted for a very long time.
I had heard the story about how Ruger "found out" about the .44 Mag, just didn't include it as it came after the cartridge was already in development. The interesting thing is that while S&W was "first", in the early years Ruger actually got more of their .44 Mags into the general market than S&W did.
Strange as it may seem today, in the early years, the .44 Magnum was not a popular round, and comparatively few were sold. After 1971, that changed radically. Sales skyrocketed, thanks to Dirty Harry, and the .44 Mag has been a popular seller ever since.
If you think today's price bubble on guns is bad, take a look at the early through mid 1970s. S&W was running two years behind in delivery of .44 Mags, and people were paying as much as 2X retail price for a S&W M 29. A good friend of mine paid over $400 for a nickel 6" when the MSRP was $283.50! (and he was earning about $300 a month at the time!) But he got one.
There were a lot of .44 mags on the used market as supply caught up with demand. Lots of times one would see a .44 Magnum (either S&W or Ruger) in the used case, with a box of ammo containing 44 rounds......
The rivalry between gun makers goes waaay back, and sometimes cost them more than they expected. The classic rivalries are Remington vs. Winchester (rifles, primarily but shotguns too..) and Colt vs. S&W.
Looking back at the history, we see that, for a LONG time, Remington would not chamber their rifles in Winchester cartridges, and Winchester would not chamber theirs for Remington's.
And Colt wouldn't make a pistol for a S&W cartridge, sort of. Anything with the S&W name would not be put in a Colt gun, as Colt didn't want "S&W" being marked on their guns.
SO, what they did, rather than take the route Winchester and Remington were on (competing cartridges that were essentially the same performance niche, but different cases), what Colt did was to make "Colt" cartridges, dimensionally the same as the S&W ones, but loaded with a different style of bullet (usually a flat point of some variety). And putting "Colt" in the name of "their" cartridge.
Look at the pre-.38Special .38s & .32s and you see this several times. Not every one, but several. Eventually Colt stopped bothering with their own "cartridge" (which was actually only a specific loading), and simply dropped the "S&W" from the cartridge name marked on a Colt gun.
This is, essentially, how the .38 S&W Special became the "simple" .38 Special.
(don't confuse the .38 S&W Special with the .38 S&W, they are different cartridge cases)
Colt made a few rifles in the early days of cartridges (which weren't hugely popular), then, according to gun legend, entered into a "gentleman's agreement" with Winchester. Colt would stay out of the rifle business, if S&W stayed out of the handgun business.
Real or not, this became the tradition, and it lasted for a very long time.
I had heard the story about how Ruger "found out" about the .44 Mag, just didn't include it as it came after the cartridge was already in development. The interesting thing is that while S&W was "first", in the early years Ruger actually got more of their .44 Mags into the general market than S&W did.
Strange as it may seem today, in the early years, the .44 Magnum was not a popular round, and comparatively few were sold. After 1971, that changed radically. Sales skyrocketed, thanks to Dirty Harry, and the .44 Mag has been a popular seller ever since.
If you think today's price bubble on guns is bad, take a look at the early through mid 1970s. S&W was running two years behind in delivery of .44 Mags, and people were paying as much as 2X retail price for a S&W M 29. A good friend of mine paid over $400 for a nickel 6" when the MSRP was $283.50! (and he was earning about $300 a month at the time!) But he got one.
There were a lot of .44 mags on the used market as supply caught up with demand. Lots of times one would see a .44 Magnum (either S&W or Ruger) in the used case, with a box of ammo containing 44 rounds......
Mike Irwin
Staff
"This is, essentially, how the .38 S&W Special became the "simple" .38 Special."
Actually, Colt marked its early .38's as being ".38 Colt Specials."
"Colt made a few rifles in the early days of cartridges (which weren't hugely popular), then, according to gun legend, entered into a "gentleman's agreement" with Winchester. Colt would stay out of the rifle business, if S&W stayed out of the handgun business."
There's no legend about it.
Colt had the Lightning Rifle and was making/importing double shotguns. Then they announced and started production of the Burgess Rifle in 1881 or so.
Winchester countered by having a sit-down with Winchester, and showed them the new Borchardt and Mason revolvers that they were developing to bring to market.
Bottom line was that the Borchardt and Mason revolvers were head and shoulders beyond anything that Colt had, or was planning, at that time, and they recognized what a critical threat they were.
The gentlemen's agreement that was supposedly hammered out resulted in Winchester dropping plans for revovlers. Colt could keep producing the Lightning rifle and shotguns, but wouldn't replace them when production ended, and would end production of the Burgess rifle after a single year.
Colt didn't enter the rifle business again until the 1960s.
"Eventually Colt stopped bothering with their own "cartridge" (which was actually only a specific loading), and simply dropped the "S&W" from the cartridge name marked on a Colt gun."
Colt's .32 Short and Long and .38 Short and Long cartridges were distinctly different than their .32 and .38 Smith & Wesson counterparts, and all were offered well into the 20th century.
Colt renamed the .32 S&W Long and .38 S&W rounds the "New Police" rounds, and offered a flat-point bullet loading. The .38 Super Police offered a 200-gr. bullet, and was the jumping off point for the British when they developed the .380-200 revolver cartridge to replace the .455 Webley.
In the early days of World War II, when the British were desperate for anything military, they bought millions of rounds of .38 Super Police from American manufacturers.
Actually, Colt marked its early .38's as being ".38 Colt Specials."
"Colt made a few rifles in the early days of cartridges (which weren't hugely popular), then, according to gun legend, entered into a "gentleman's agreement" with Winchester. Colt would stay out of the rifle business, if S&W stayed out of the handgun business."
There's no legend about it.
Colt had the Lightning Rifle and was making/importing double shotguns. Then they announced and started production of the Burgess Rifle in 1881 or so.
Winchester countered by having a sit-down with Winchester, and showed them the new Borchardt and Mason revolvers that they were developing to bring to market.
Bottom line was that the Borchardt and Mason revolvers were head and shoulders beyond anything that Colt had, or was planning, at that time, and they recognized what a critical threat they were.
The gentlemen's agreement that was supposedly hammered out resulted in Winchester dropping plans for revovlers. Colt could keep producing the Lightning rifle and shotguns, but wouldn't replace them when production ended, and would end production of the Burgess rifle after a single year.
Colt didn't enter the rifle business again until the 1960s.
"Eventually Colt stopped bothering with their own "cartridge" (which was actually only a specific loading), and simply dropped the "S&W" from the cartridge name marked on a Colt gun."
Colt's .32 Short and Long and .38 Short and Long cartridges were distinctly different than their .32 and .38 Smith & Wesson counterparts, and all were offered well into the 20th century.
Colt renamed the .32 S&W Long and .38 S&W rounds the "New Police" rounds, and offered a flat-point bullet loading. The .38 Super Police offered a 200-gr. bullet, and was the jumping off point for the British when they developed the .380-200 revolver cartridge to replace the .455 Webley.
In the early days of World War II, when the British were desperate for anything military, they bought millions of rounds of .38 Super Police from American manufacturers.
Bob Wright
New member
KEV stated:
Again, the story is that Ruger had a revolver almost ready before S&W did. How much lag time was involved, I don't know.
The first Ruger .44 Magnum Blackhawks were built on the same frame as the .357 Magnum, a mid-sized frame. During testing of the gun, the decision was made to increase the frame size to the "MR-44" frame, the previous was the "MR" frame.
I have heard two stories concerning the decision to enlarge the frame. One is that the gun "blew up" during testing and the heavier frame was made to better contain the cartridge.
Another story I heard, and blamed if I can find that source now, is that the barrel bulged on the smaller gun, and Ruger went to the larger. Later it was found that while firing the gun vertically into a water tank, water droplets entered the bore despite a rubber membrane. These droplets caused the barrel bulge.
How much of either story is true, I can't document now.
Bob Wright
Again, the story is that Ruger had a revolver almost ready before S&W did. How much lag time was involved, I don't know.
The first Ruger .44 Magnum Blackhawks were built on the same frame as the .357 Magnum, a mid-sized frame. During testing of the gun, the decision was made to increase the frame size to the "MR-44" frame, the previous was the "MR" frame.
I have heard two stories concerning the decision to enlarge the frame. One is that the gun "blew up" during testing and the heavier frame was made to better contain the cartridge.
Another story I heard, and blamed if I can find that source now, is that the barrel bulged on the smaller gun, and Ruger went to the larger. Later it was found that while firing the gun vertically into a water tank, water droplets entered the bore despite a rubber membrane. These droplets caused the barrel bulge.
How much of either story is true, I can't document now.
Bob Wright
Willie Lowman
New member
You forgot about the 1921 TSMG.
The 1927 semi auto Thompson, while rare, it is/was a rifle.
I don't think the 1927A1 semiauto Thompson was ever made by Colt. As far as I know, all the semi auto Thompson "rifles" were made by Auto Ordnance (now owned by Khar).
Colt produced SMG Thompsons for a while, I believe, but not any of the semi auto guns, which I think didn't actually appear until the 1960s, despite the 1927 in the model name.
Colt produced SMG Thompsons for a while, I believe, but not any of the semi auto guns, which I think didn't actually appear until the 1960s, despite the 1927 in the model name.
Bob Wright
New member
And, Oh yes!, the Colt Monitor, around the 1920s or so. This was a commercial version of the famous BAR, or Browning Automatic Rifle, M1918.
Bob Wright
Bob Wright
Bob Wright
New member
I sort of gag at times of calling shoulder arms such as the semi-auto Thompson a rifle. I know I'm a lone voice in the appliction of such terms, but the Thompson fired a pistol cartridge, i.e, short, straight rimless case of moderate power. In view of that it ought to be classified as a light rifle. In the same vein, the M1 Carbine is truly a light rifle, as the carbine, in its truest sense, should fire the standard rifle cartridge, of the time the .30 M1 rounds.
Bob Wright
Bob Wright
Mike Irwin
Staff
The Colt Monitor was an automatic, not a rifle per se, and it wasn't aimed at the general civilian market but at law enforcement, prisons, banks and armored car companies, etc.
And, with only about 125 Monitors produed, it certainly was not a threat to Winchester.
"You forgot about the 1921 TSMG."
No, I didn't. Colt didn't enter that market on their own volition. They entered it under contract to the designer of the weapon, who took delivery and sold them.
And, with only about 125 Monitors produed, it certainly was not a threat to Winchester.
"You forgot about the 1921 TSMG."
No, I didn't. Colt didn't enter that market on their own volition. They entered it under contract to the designer of the weapon, who took delivery and sold them.
A common mistake that is often made because of the .41 and .44 Remington Magnum designations is to assume that .357 Remington Magnum is also the full name for the .357 Magnum cartridge. Such, however, is not the case because in this one instance it was actually Winchester, not Remington, which developed the original loadings. I have, however, never seen ".357 Winchester Magnum" used and, to my knowledge, the full name for the cartridge is ".357 S&W Magnum." To add to the confusion, there is another .357 cartridge that was designed by Remington and is appropriately referred to with that company in its title: .357 Remington Maximum.
Mike Irwin
Staff
It appears that only in the earliest production runs did Winchester even note that the cartridges were for Smith & Wesson handguns... See post 22...
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-hand-ejectors-1896-1961/76430-early-357-ammo.html
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-hand-ejectors-1896-1961/76430-early-357-ammo.html
Bob Wright
New member
The Colt Montor was select fire, semi or full auto, as I recall. But a rifle, none the less.
Of interest in this respect, many years ago, when some older neighborhoods (in Memphis, TN) were being demolished for highway construction, a few Thompson SMG and BARs were unearthed. Apparently these were buried when the GCA 1934 was passed in the hopes that that law would be temporary.
Bob Wright
NoSecondBest
New member
Amazing. Eighteen answers for a yes or no question. For the OP....YES. I'd hesitate to ask this crew what time it is, I'd end up knowing how to make a watch. The only reason I stopped on this post today was to see how that question drew so many responses. Heard a lot of stuff I never heard before though.
The only reason I stopped on this post today was to see how that question drew so many responses. Heard a lot of stuff I never heard before though.