How can this be, it makes no sense?

As you've probably gathered from my previous answers, I'm all in favor of your 44-40. As a matter of fact, the first few deer I killed were with a 92 in 38-40, and I consider 243 too little to use on deer if something better is available. People are enamored of kinetic energy these days, not realizing it's a poor surrogate marker for effectiveness when you get out of the miniature/small-bore range. The poor sectional density of the 200 grain bullets you'll doubtless use argue against strongly angled shots, but anything between broadside and quartering and that bullet will perform quite nicely. The people ragging you simply lack experience with the cartridge. By the way, you're likely to get 1500+ fps from it in your 92, so you'll do well to ignore the numbers people give you from tables derived from revolver ballistics.