And if it is a 44 in 32-40 does it have the lugged breechblock?

I could, but that question was directed to the owner, Chowboy.

I have logged as many .32-40s without the lugged hammer as with, for what that's worth. 

More or less mixed.  There's two lugged hammers in the log in the low four digit numbers, then none until a cluster of four shows up at 27xxx, all .32-40s, then after that its one at 29679 and one more at 46107.   

I think they may be under-counted due to the fact that I'm mainly getting data from common online broker sites.  The high grade ones made for Schuetzen duty and chambered .32-40 are IMHO more likely to sell at real auctions like Cowans, and I have not been trolling those sites for data.   

I can actually only point to one .32-40 that definitely doesn't have the lugged hammer.   The rest of my entries that don't tick the "yes" box are ???  Most Gunbroker sellers don't know what a lugged hammer is, and/or won't bother answering my queries when I see a .32-40 for sale.  Two or three specimens I need to annoy an ASSRA member to verify.   

One curious factoid that emerges is that so many lugged hammers appear well above the 16000 range where the central extractor appears.  According to catalogs, that was 1901-1903.  But in 1903 they quit offering the 44 action for any centerfire larger than .32-20.   Now can this be?  My hypotheses are too sketchy to be worth recording.

Yes, Frank, but that was one of those where the presence of the hammer lug wasn't confirmed.  Thanks!   I've updated the matrix.  

I see it has a Lyman tang....what is the front sight?  And I assume it has the usual period barrel rollstamp?   

Phil

I did not have 18040 logged at all.  It's a 45 with DST in .32-40.  Again, what were the original sights?   

I haven't been logging barrel weights.  Ought to, but data would be very hard to come by.  Online sellers are even more ignorant about that.