You know what they say about assuming...     BBI's data for all the cartridges lists results from barrel cutting.  That's the focus of the project.  None of the velocity data is software generated.   As much as possible, they add additional data from more common, typically encountered guns (rifles and handguns when they can get their hands on both) to show how the rounds perform outside of what are essentially test barrels.



I don't recall ever making or stating such a conclusion.  My statement was:


and I followed that with


The intention of my statement was not the a 10mm carbine would inherently be of little or no use, but that it would be unimpressive compared to better, already available alternatives.

Gotcha. I guess it just felt like you were pissing in my Cheerios and you're right about the assuming thing, that's why I used that word.

I still want one. Carbines in lesser cartridges (9mm, for example) can even slow a bullet down from the pistol velocity but that doesn't mean they aren't fun to shoot. I still maintain that you should be able to get roughly equivalent external ballistic performance from a 10mm and a .357 mag carbine. The case capacity differs by a very small degree. I measured .357 mag at 27.6 gr of water and 10mm at 25.6 gr. In practical terms, there is less difference because a bullet of equivalent weight protrudes into the case less in the 10mm. That means that at heavier bullet weights the 10mm can actually have more case capacity. Using similar burn rate powders, and that really is the key, the 10mm should have no trouble getting similar bullet weights to within 100 fps of what the .357 mag can do. Especially if neither is actually loaded to capacity. Moreover, the SAAMI spec upper pressure limit for 10mm is 37,500 psi. For .357 mag it is 35,000 psi. Again, the difference is very small. In terms of terminal ballistics the 10mm has the potential to produce slightly wider cavities while the .357's higher sectional density can drive deeper at a given weight. Finally, 10mm has the capability of firing MUCH heavier projectiles than .357 mag. 220 gr is the typical upper limit for 10mm bullets (230 gr bullets do exist) while 180 gr is the heaviest that I know of for .357 mag.

I agree that there are more loads suited to the .357 mag carbine readily available. Of course, there are simply more loads produced for the .357 mag. 10mm has some pretty limited ammo choices. I believe that hand loading is the best way to maximize the potential of any cartridge. There are many good factory choices but most are a little too much this or not quite enough that for my particular wants. Even if one were limited to only factory loads, I think a 10mm carbine could be a very capable and useful tool. Besides as a certain old guy is fond of saying, shooting stuff is fun.

Not intended to be more piss in the Cheerios, but...

Behold, the 200 gr hardcast .357 Magnum from specialty commercial ammo maker Doubletap:  http://www.doubletapammo.net/index.php?route=product/product&path=303_331&product_id=337

1200fps / 639 ft-lb in a 4" Ruger GP-100
1315fps /767 ft-lb in a  6"bbl S&W 686

220gr bullets&/or molds and loading data for the .357 Mag exist, and apparently there are 230 gr bullets and data used for bowling pins.
http://www.pennbullets.com/38/38-caliber.html



Considering that I was just having a discussion/ argument with a coworker yesterday that my personal preference can't be wrong if I'm fully informed (regarding my preference not to have any kind of bumper case for my new cell phone- I personally hate using them, and I understand my phone could be destroyed if I drop it on the pavement), and I had to tell him that I didn't understand why he felt the need to try to force me to conform to his option and personal preference on something, I'd be a hypocrite to say you're wrong for still wanting one.



truth.

I saw a Winchester M1995 in 30.06 at Potomac Arms (anyone remember them, in Alexandria, VA?) back in 1976.  I wanted that rifle so bad, but couldn't afford it as a PFC in the US Army at the time.

Holy shit! Learning about new cool stuff to shoot is the OPPOSITE of piss in the Cheerios. Thanks.

I have to give it to bluefalcon.  While I've done a lot of testing with my 10mm loads and fast magnum pistol powders like Power Pistol, I've never tried a slower powder like H110 (that I use in my 357mag loads) in a purpose loaded 10mm round for a carbine length barrel like a Mech Tech.
However, I don't really see the need to re-invent the wheel here as there already exists a 10mm (.401" dia) round that outperforms any capability the 10mm could ever achieve in a rifle length barrel.  It's called the 38-40 and Loaddata.com has 38-40 rifle loads with 180gr. jacketed bullets.  How about an 10mm 180grn bullet over 25.5 grs. of 2400 at 36,000 psi which produces 1,866fps velocities and 1,391ft/lbs of muzzle energy!  

A Rossi 1892 action is plenty strong enough to handle this load as the original Winchester Model 92 was chambered in 38-40.  HERE is a link to a discussion of someone who re-barreled their Rossi 44mag to 38-40.  (Look for post #6 in the thread by muskeg13.)
 


 

So, does anybody make a double stack 13-15 round auto pistol chambered in 38-40?

Based on my discussion of the 38-40 above, it's clear that using modern powders in existing pistol calibers (even if they originally were developed for black powder) can produce impressive results in leverguns with actions strong enough to withstand the high pressures.  It all depends upon what weight bullet and what size hole you want to produce.  
In a stock Rossi Model 92, one can launch the following:
158grn, .357 cal bullet (357mag) at 2,153fps producing 1,626ft/lbs of ME (Buffalo Bore's Heavy 357mag)




180grn, .401 cal bullet (38-40) at 1,866fps producing 1,391ft/lbs of ME




240grn, .429 cal bullet (44mag) at 1,923fps  producing 1,970ft/lbs of ME




255grn, .452 cal bullet (45 colt) at 1,777fps  producing 1,369ft/lbs of ME




300grn, .452 cal bullet (454 casull) at 2,022fps  producing 2,724ft/lbs of ME
All of these would produce impressive performance and best of all, 4 of the 5 examples (357mag, 44mag, 45 colt, and 454 casull) are already produced by Rossi.
And
If you're really into a .401 caliber bullet flying down range in a hurry, give the old straight walled black powder 38-55 rifle round a look.  Loaded with modern magnum smokeless powder in a strong action, it can produce the following impressive results.
200grn, .401 cal bullet (38-55) at 2,155fps producing 2,063ft/lbs of ME





 
 
 

I thought the title of this thread was "What's your dream Lever Gun? (Real Or Not) "  Not loading data.

So back on topic..

As I stated a few pages back...

Original 1873 Winchester in 40WCF  The gun is available, but my pockets are not deep enough.

The load data was there to show that as far as a 10mm dream levergun goes, there are currently two existing levergun calibers (38-40 and 38-55) that use the same 10mm bullets but easily produce better performance.  Then I compared them to other pistol caliber leverguns.  If it helped anyone I'm pleased, if not, no big effort wasted.





That said, it doesn't have to make sense to anyone else on what specific caliber firearm one wants; if someone wants it, they want it and that's all individual preference.  Just trying to show them that there is something out there already that could possibly scratch their itch.



As far as an original 1873 in 44-40, most of us would consider a 141 year old rifle as a piece to cherish and not shoot.  In addition, based on the weak toggle action design and the lack of modern steel used, even if one were to want to use an original to shoot often, they would be limited to the low pressure ammo so as not to damage a somewhat fragile piece of history.





 

Well, then there is .44mag. Here is mine, exactly what I wanted. Never fired before me, japchester quality construction, no lawyer BS, straight stock, slick as snot.


I clocked Win. white box 240 gr at 1897 fps.. (my load book isn't handy).

To make it ideal I'd have it in .41 mag.. though. There is no question that would really dust off 10mm. Basically the same energy as .44 except at the extreme, but carries farther.




ETA:

16" Marlin in .454 Casull

I think Marlin was the only one to make a popularish .41 mag. lever (1894). I almost got one for that reason alone. They are not that great looking though (just my opinion).

The Browning B92 is the ultimate pistol caliber levergun as far as I'm concerned.  How do you like that Skinner sight on your B92?   Mine still has the issue sights and they could stand some improvement.  (I also have a B92 in .357 with the factory sights).

My B92 .44

An 1894 size rifle chambered in 454 Casul.

I like them, a lot. I made a front blade out of a nickle for it (you can still see Jefferson's eyes a little Nice stock on that one BTW!


This is the ghost ring without the target aperture screwed in

I really do want a Rossi M92 in .44 mag and a S&W 629 to match my wife's M92 in .357 mag and S&W Model 13.

You know I really wanted the .41 because I have a model 57. At the end of the day though, if you reload, you will likely have different loads for each even if they are the same caliber. E.g different diameter slugs (within same caliber's range), different powders etc.. When you push a nice plinker load matched to your revolver barrel dia. and it ends up going 1500-1600 fps out of your rifle while being just a touch on the small side it can make a real chore on cleaning your barrel

People wanting to shoot lead also need to consider the microgrooves in many of these rifles. There are ways to make it work well, but it usually is going to be a larger dia. slug than your pistol will like.

Still, in a practical situation, either load would probably work well enough in both.

Good to know, I had my doubts about the barrel mounted Skinner sight since it is so far from your eye.  Nice work on the front sight blade, great idea.

Yeah, for me it is just a little more in focus out there lol (older eyes but still great vision overall). It is sized correctly for that spot IMO and frames the front up nicely. It is much easier for me to pick up the front sight vs. the buckhorn. I'd say you almost have to try it before putting holes in the receiver with guns as nice as yours. If you intend to use it for distance compensation it is not set up well for that.

This! Major bonus if it were to be made as a Mountie!

My 1948 39A is lonely, I'd buy one on stainless.

I really want the rossi in 454 casull and a ruger revolver in the same... Some reason matching calibers just calls to me.

Looks like those boutique 10mm manufacturers can get some pretty impressive velocity from a 16" barrel.

.

and look what they can get from a .357:  

18.5 inch Marlin 1894

a. Item 19A/20-180gr. Hard Cast = 1851 fps
b. Item 19B/20-170gr. JHC = 1860 fps
c. Item 19C/20-158gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 2153 fps
d. Item 19D/20-125gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 2298 fps

My dream for lever guns is for Ruger to buy the Marlin name and start making the entire line in blue and stainless with round and octogon barrels.

I think they would do a much better job than the current builder, who I have given up on.

I would want to start out with a 39 Mountie, 1894 in 45LC, and 1895 in 45-70 all in stainless with peep sights, octogon barrels and satin finish.

Add more later in 44mag, 357 mag.

Sure, and you get a lot more from .30-06 but the point is that 10mm can make substantial velocity gains from a rifle barrel. Certainly not a typical auto pistol cartridge.

I've heard stories of how some shooters used lever actions in the local 100 yard HP match when the rifle club was new. For the past year or two, with an NM A2, carbine, Garand, or M70 Target, I usually win by 20 points, so as a semi-serious joke, the guys think of ways to handicap me, and the comeback of a lever action was mentioned.
Working the lever in Prone Rapid and reloading ain't easy by my guess, so picture a Winchester Model 94 combined with an Eliseo R5 or T2K.
Here's an MS Paint. Gas_Operated offered the name "Purple Persuader MK87".











 

You had a point until you threw in the rifle cartridge. You only get half as many of those.

If you're talking about your ideal lever gun, I think the reality of it is .357 is tremendously popular because people use them as plinkers for cowboy games (looks fun as shit to me). If they don't reload they can just grab .38 special IIRC. Then you have a very capable round in the full house .357 loads on top of that. If 10mm ammo were cheap, it might be a way to go. Otherwise, the fact of the matter is it isn't a revolver, and .44 or .41 will do anything those will do loaded down with Unique etc. with a light slow slug and isn't exactly going to blow your shoulder out when you go full house. So it does everything .357 does, but the opposite is not true.

I think we're talking past each other here. I'm not arguing that 10mm is "better" than .357 in any particular way, just that it is also a very potent handgun cartridge that can also produce substantial velocity when fired from a rifle length barrel.

I own a .357 revolver, .357 carbine, .44 revolver, and 10mm pistol. I love the little .357 carbine and intend to purchase one in .44. I would ALSO like to have one in 10mm, if such a thing existed. It is unlikely that anyone will ever make one because it is, as you mention, a niche of a niche. 10mm and .357 are very similar in velocity and energy when similar powders are used. The only substantial difference between the two is the sectional density. 10mm is profoundly better suited to rifle length barrels, though, than are 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, etc. Unfortunately, it is a rimless cartridge, which makes less adaptable to a lever action design. Worse, because a rimless cartridge necessarily head spaces on the case mouth, if a 10mm lever action carbine did exist, you couldn't fire .40 S&W through it.


That said, I think you're being a little disingenuous by comparing 18.5" velocity to 16". Those extra 2.5" doesn't make a huge difference, but it's not a stand up comparison. Let's just compare a 155 gr bullet from a 16" barrel to a 158 gr bullet from a 16" barrel:

Federal 158 gr. JHP: 1739 (figure listed on the BBTI site)

Underwood 155 XTP: 1,744 (average of the three velocities listed in the other post)


My point here is that the two cartridges are capable of very similar performance and, although you may not personally have any wish to purchase one, a 10mm carbine could be a very fun and useful gun. I believe you are incorrect in the assertion that there is a profound difference in the external ballistic capabilities of the two cartridges.

lol, I don't even know who is arguing with whom... The only data I posted was my personal 20".44mag data. My point is simply on the practicality of it. If I were already reloading 10mm I'd probably have a different opinion, but even then for a single carbine owner or an "ideal" lever gun - definitely not my choice. Neither is .357. I do see the point you are trying to make though.

a henry big boy in 500 s&w mag.

This same rifle but in 45-70. Whenever I can afford one.

I've always wanted a Winchester 1895 in .30-06. I'd like to have a SBRed Marlin in .44 magnum, and I'd like to find a cheap .30-30 to stick a plastic stock on and make a lightweight set up.

I absolutely love my hot 10mm loads form my custom G20L with it's 6" barrel and have chrono'd very close to 1,600fps out of my G20L with a 165grn Speer Gold Dot bullet and my 'nuclear' handload. I also understand that the lighter weight 10mm bullets can be pushed very fast out of a 16" rifle barrel.
However, I also know that a light-for-diameter bullet like a 155grn doesn't do well at distances usually associated with leverguns because of their low ballistic coefficient (a HP version has a BC of 0.138) which causes the bullet to rapidly lose velocity and energy in flight.  Compare that to a slightly heavier 158grn 357mag bullet with it's smaller diameter
giving it a decidedly better BC of 0.184 and you'll see that velocity
ain't the only thing that's important.
Using Handloads.com's Ballistic Calculator we see the following performance out to 300yds when shooting on an 84º day with a 2mph crosswind and a hypothetical 1,700fps velocity (hard to achieve in a 10mm but a cinch in a 357mag from a rifle length barrel):
155grn 10mm bullet:




 

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Range	Velocity	Impact	Drop	ToF	Energy	Drift
0	1700	-0.5	0	0	995	0
50	1468	1.78	1.85	0.1	742	0.32
100	1279	0	7.76	0.21	563	1.05
150	1134	-7.13	19.02	0.33	443	2.3
200	1035	-21.01	37.03	0.47	369	4.02
250	964	-43.02	63.17	0.62	320	6.14
300	910	-74.33	98.62	0.78	285	8.59

158grn 357mag bullet:




 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Range	Velocity	Impact	Drop	ToF	Energy	Drift
0	1700	-0.5	0	0	1014	0
50	1524	1.63	1.81	0.1	815	0.26
100	1371	0	7.38	0.2	659	0.79
150	1241	-6.28	17.6	0.31	540	1.71
200	1136	-18.22	33.48	0.44	453	3.01
250	1059	-36.91	56.1	0.58	393	4.67
300	999	-63.33	86.46	0.72	350	6.63

The two charts above show that the heavier, smaller diameter 357mag bullet retains considerably more velocity, drops less, retains higher energy, and has less drift at all ranges than the 10mm bullet because of it's better BC.  Also, typical levergun barrel lengths are 19"-24", not 16", and a full power 357mag load is still accelerating while the 10mm has run out of powder and actually decelerates at these longer barrel lengths as shown in Ballistics by the Inch's 10mm table.  
You'll see that at 18" barrel lengths, the 155grn Cor Bon load is slowing down (1,352fps at 17" vs 1,319fps at 18"). Compare that to my two 357mag Rossis' (one 20" carbine and one 24" rifle) chrono results which show a 36fps increase in my 24" barreled rifle (1,977fps) over my 20" carbine (1,941fps) using the same, full power 158grn Zero JSP bullets, a full load of H110 powder, and magnum pistol primers.  
A comparison shows that my 20" carbine produces 589fps higher velocities and my 24" rifle produces 625fps higher velocities than the 17" barreled test article with 155grn Cor Bon loads.  Much as I like the 10mm as a handgun caliber, the truth is clear that it can't compete with the higher BCs of comparable weight bullets in a 357mag nor can it produce the high velocities the 357mag's much larger case volume and slower magnum pistol powder produce.
So, reproducing the above charts with actual performance differences between the 155grn 10mm in a theoretical 17" carbine and 158grn 357mag out of an actual Rossi 20" carbine yields the startling differences at a typical 150 yards as shown below:
155grn 10mm bullet in 17" barrel:










 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Range	Velocity	Impact	Drop	ToF	Energy	Drift
0	1352	-0.5	0	0	641	0
50	1184	2.85	2.85	0.12	492	0.36
100	1069	0	11.91	0.26	401	1.13
150	989	-10.47	28.58	0.4	343	2.33
200	930	-29.82	54.13	0.56	303	3.88
250	882	-59.17	89.69	0.72	273	5.75
300	840	-99.66	136.38	0.9	248	7.9

158grn 357mag bullet in 20" Rossi carbine:










 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Range	Velocity	Impact	Drop	ToF	Energy	Drift
0	1941	-0.5	0	0	2091	0
50	1734	1.2	1.41	0.08	1669	0.24
100	1550	0	5.72	0.18	1334	0.73
150	1386	-4.84	13.68	0.28	1066	1.58
200	1246	-14.24	26.19	0.39	862	2.84
250	1136	-29.25	44.31	0.52	716	4.51
300	1054	-51	69.17	0.66	617	6.56

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Good info. The .357 Mag really shines out of a levergun, with really incredible versatility. That chambering has so many advantages over a 10mm for that role, and most leverguns are designed around a rimmed cartridge, anyway.

Something in .45ACP.

I don't get the attraction of the 45acp.  The 45colt will shoot the same bullet weights as the 45acp as well as much heavier ones and can be loaded down to light 45acp levels or as high as bottom level 45-70 power.  It's a much more versatile round in a levergun.  The only advantage of the 45acp I see is that you can carry more rds in the magazine.  But, 12rds of 45colt in my 24" Uberti 1873 are plenty, especially because as with all leverguns with side loading gates, one can 'top off' the mag easily, even while walking up on game if need be.



 

A couple of years ago I got in to Cowboy Action Shooting, a little, and became completely taken by the 1873 Winchester design. I absolutely love the butter smooth action and  the fact that they can be short stroked and slicked-up with relative ease. To that end, my fantasy and what seems an eternity of waiting, will finally become a reality in a few short days; a  Uberti 1873 Saddle Ring Carbine in .44 Magnum



 Cannot wait!

I've seen one too, however, while I've not taken it apart, I understand that the receiver is made of a different, stronger steel (that's why it's not available in case hardened) and the action is beefed up from their standard 1873 to handle the significantly higher bolt thrust than the original design.  
I'd love to hear from ggibs about his and see a few pictures with the covers off to see the differences.
ETA:
I did some searching and found this post which is purported to be from Uberti's Customer Service Dept. responding to a question about the 1873 in 44mag.
"Bill,






Sorry, with this gun the hardness level of the metal has been increased.  That is why it is only offered in a blue case hardened finish. The action is the same as the other calibers.
Thank you,






Customer Service
RE: 1873 Win copy 44 magnum"
I'll be honest, even with this answer, I have a hard time looking at my 1873's action and believing that just hardening the steel in the existing action would be enough to make it strong enough to withstand the nearly 6,000lbs of bolt thrust (vs the 2,500lbs the original was designed for).  
Just look at how small the pins are in the toggles of this original 1873.  The pins in both my Uberti 1873 and 1866 are no bigger; true, they are made with better steel but still, I just don't see the Uberti's action being able to withstand the huge increase in forces for long.  The hardened receiver will help, but the design of the action puts all the force on those small diameter pins and toggle holes.  
How will they not work the holes oblong over time?




I hate to be a nay sayer here; what with me being skeptical about both the 10mm cartridge in a levergun and the Uberti 1873 in 44mag, but after over 50 years of enjoying shooting and over 41 years in the Aerospace business, I've seen what long term abuse of metal parts can do.  Metal, even hardened steel, even armor plated steel, will deform under repeated stress and all my experience says that the basic design of the 1873 can't be 'hardened' into something that will hold up long term, no matter what they try.



However, I'd love to be proven wrong.






 
 

 

A few thoughts here...

Who among us would look at a set of tires on a Model T  Ford a nd think "gee...I better stay below 30 mph on my tires because the basic design is 100+ years old!". No one I'd bet because we assume the quantum leaps in technology have taken care of the basic dangers of the old design of tires.

 Does anyone think John Moses Browning could've possibly foreseen his '92 Winchester design being chambered for a high pressure (60,000 psi) cartridge such as the 454 Casull? Doubtful. Technology made that possible.

And so it goes with the '73. Technology has made it better and stronger. The same Uberti 1873 is chambered in .357 Magnum which, according to SAAMI specs, has the same chamber pressure as the .44. I know, I know....bolt thrust. But I'm not a firearms engineer so I trust the guys who design and produce the '73 just the same as I trust the folks who designed the 2 ton Dodge 2500 truck I drive with careless abandon at 75 mph down a busy road.

And FWIW, it's highly unlikely mine will ever see a .44 Magnum in its chamber. I'm buying one because I shoot and hunt with .44 Specials and often load them up in the 22,000 psi range and I want a '73 that can handle this type load.

Seems like every forth guy mentions a lever in 500S&W .
OK , I see the use of that but wouldn't a 460S&W have lots better use? I believe the 460 has about the same power as the 500 due to greater velocity but it also has the ability to shoot the 454 and 45colt.

I own levers in 22lr ,357m, 44m, 30-30 , 32ws, 308 , and 45/70 and asking me to pick is like asking a mother which one of her kids she loves more

I'll end up with a Uberti '73, but it has to be case colored and I don't care if it shoots hot rounds. I have the b92 for that.

I think you've got your analogy wrong there.

Sure, the 1876 action is stronger than that of the 73, so the "basic design" is not limited to the .44-40 WCF, but we're not talking about the basic design; we're talking specifically about the 1873 action with little or no modification beyond modern materials.  Correct me if I'm mistaken, but there are no significantly beefier, bigger, thicker links and larger diameter pins, etc as seen in the 76 acgtion.

A better analogy would be looking at a Model T Ford's tires and thinking, "If only those tires were made of modem, high-tech polymer rubber, that exact size and design would be good for my 200 MPH Ferrari.

I'm not quite following you, so let's try this from a different angle...

I brought up the '92 because although it was originally chambered for low pressure, anemic rounds such as the 25-20, 32-20, 38-40, 44-40, etc., modern metallurgy has allowed the action to be strengthened so as to allow chambering cartridges such as the aforementioned 454 Casull. Thus we can see that technology made the action stronger, as it evidently has with the '73.  I'm not really sure why you referred to the 1876 action.

I don't quite get your analogy, or whatever it is, regarding tires, anyhow...

If the thought of a toggle link action being used as a platform for a .44 Magnum frightens you, fine. I understand and respect that, and suggest you don't buy a firearm so chambered. But I will!

Yes modern metallurgy has helped, but the '92 action was already stout enough at the turn of the century that they were commonly converted to .357 and even .44 magnum later regardless of what they were originally chambered in. The latter eventually causing excessive wear and headspace issues albeit.

It shouldn't be too hard to figure out why I mentioned the 1876 action: It is the same "basic design" as the 73, but enlarged and strengthened to handle more powerful cartridges like the 45-75 and .50-95, thus serving as an example that the "basic design" of the 73 toggle link action can safely handle cartridges more powerful than the .44-40WCF.

In regards to technology making the 73 action stronger, modern metallurgy can only get you so far without changing the design.

Yes it was already stout, but I'll bet the farm it wasn't 60,000 psi stout. No way, no how.

You're beginning to ramble and lose my attention.

But tell you what, why don't you take your insight and firearms design expertise and contact Uberti and make them aware of their errors in chambering their 1873 in .44 Magnum...and .357 Magnum too since their SAAMI chamber pressures are pretty much the same, and please get back to us with their response. I'm sure they'll be quite grateful to you for pointing their oversight.