jimbo555
Member
I feel the same way Chief! A real colt saa is still on my wish list! I have to make do with a Cimarron frontier for now.
Colt or S&W in the Old West?
- Thread starter Kleanbore
- Start date
- Status
The movies used Colts because they were available to the prop houses and studios as factory guns up to the early 1940's, so they were easy to get. Plus, they looked good, and that, not historical accuracy, was what was important in the movies.
But in terms of what was actually carried, the most popular guns were those "no big name" solid frame and break-top revolvers that were made by the zillions and cost a couple of dollars when a Colt SAA would have cost a real cowboy half a month's pay, and S&W's were even more costly.
Yes, the Army used SAA's, and so did some lawmen and outlaws, while those who were paid well (or stole more) carried other expensive guns. But an H&R or IJ or Hopkins & Allen or Emperor or Victor or Smoker or True Blue could have just as easily be found in the pocket of the average Westerner.
Jim
But in terms of what was actually carried, the most popular guns were those "no big name" solid frame and break-top revolvers that were made by the zillions and cost a couple of dollars when a Colt SAA would have cost a real cowboy half a month's pay, and S&W's were even more costly.
Yes, the Army used SAA's, and so did some lawmen and outlaws, while those who were paid well (or stole more) carried other expensive guns. But an H&R or IJ or Hopkins & Allen or Emperor or Victor or Smoker or True Blue could have just as easily be found in the pocket of the average Westerner.
Jim
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I'm ordering one next year.
It's been on my wish list for as long as I can remember, but what with one thing or another I never got one. Too expensive, other things to worry about, that kind of thing.
Well, my finances are lined up for it and next year is definately the year. 200 hundred years after the year Samual Colt was born: July 19, 1814.
And no fancy-schmancy artwork on it, either. Just the .45 Colt caliber, 5.5 inch barrel, in blue/color case hardened.
No nickle plating, no custom engraving or gold gilt, no special grips.
I MIGHT buy a pair of them, but I'll be plenty happy with one.
Deaf Smith
Member
I'd have got a Winchester 44/40 and a 5 1/2 barrel Colt in 44/40 as my setup. Might even added a Allen & Hopkins DA 44/40 as a backup.
If I needed more range then the Spencer or Sharps would be the deal. Spencer would have been more than a 44/40 and carried 7 rounds but the Sharps would have had more range but only one shot.
Thing is gang, back then a Colt revolver was $15, and that was almost a whole months wage for a cow hand. Add to that the 73 and it would have taken a regular guy at least a month to 2 months of no eating, or fun, to even get them. Plus ammo I bet was not cheap either.
Heavens knows what a Spencer or Sharps would have set back a guy.
And that is why unlike the TV shows people didn't all pack Colts and Winchesters. Lots of them did have old Civil War stuff that may or may not have been converted to take cartridges.
Deaf
If I needed more range then the Spencer or Sharps would be the deal. Spencer would have been more than a 44/40 and carried 7 rounds but the Sharps would have had more range but only one shot.
Thing is gang, back then a Colt revolver was $15, and that was almost a whole months wage for a cow hand. Add to that the 73 and it would have taken a regular guy at least a month to 2 months of no eating, or fun, to even get them. Plus ammo I bet was not cheap either.
Heavens knows what a Spencer or Sharps would have set back a guy.
And that is why unlike the TV shows people didn't all pack Colts and Winchesters. Lots of them did have old Civil War stuff that may or may not have been converted to take cartridges.
Deaf
Arkansas Paul
Member
If it was after 1876 you could have got a Winchester in .45-75 that would have filled that bill nicely.
I won't embarrass the retired sailor by name, but someone just posted that the S&W M-67 was used in the Old West... It is a product of the early 1970's! S&W did not even use model numbers until 1957!
Now, if you've read, "The Silence of the Lambs" by Thos. Harris, you may recall Dr. Lecter asking Clarice what we covet. Well, we cherish and aspire to what we see. I think most people saw more Colts from 1870-1900 than any other brand.
The handling qualities of S&W guns, with the long reach to the hammer hurt sales, I'm sure, and I know for sure that many even now think the Colt was more rugged, whether it was or not.
The Colt was much favored for presumed ruggedness overseas, too. Read, "King Solomon's Mines", originally published about 1883. The author, Sir Henry Rider Haggrd, was a veteran of the Second Zulu War in 1879, and if you know the Zulu tribal structure, his Kukuana (sp?) people were in most respects patterned after the Zulu. (I know this because I wrote a paper on the Zulu in a college anthropology class.) In the book, not in the five or so movies based on it, the explorers used Colt SAA .45's. We know they were .45's because he said they used "the heavier pattern of cartridge" when only .45 Colt and .44/40 were available in that model. They also had Win. '73's and some English BP Express rifles for heavier game. The .44 Winchestrs were for native attacks and smaller buck. Haggard was actually pretty gun-knowledgeable, and he had seen service in South Africa. He may have been aware of the 10,000 Remington .44's sold to the British-controlled govt. of Egypt, but would know that .44 Remington ammo was scarce in most lands. I suspect that it was very hard to find outside of the USA and the Egyptian military, although we know that the American Chief of Scouts Frederick Burnham in the 2nd Boer War of 1899-1902 carried the .44 Remington M-1875 that he'd used in AZ. The British Army made him Chief of Scouts with the rank of Major, despite his being American, and he was probably Lord Baden-Powell's inpiration for founding the Boy Scouts. But Fred Burnham is the only man I've read about using the Remington, and it failed Army rusting tests, although they were probably excessive for real life situations. The Remington also has a shorter hammer spur and fits most hands less well than does the Colt SAA.
I exchanged letters with the late British gun authority Geoffrey Boothroyd, whose, "The Handgun" is a monumental item that no gun enthusiat should be without. He noted that if the British had made more movies about their forces in India, the Webley revolvers would be better thought of. I'm sure he ws right, and the better finished Webleys meant for private purchase by officers were really nice guns, and the stirrup lock was stronger than that on S&W's.
The S&W wore more and was probably too weak for heavy use with .44-40 ammo and would have been perceived as too weak for that ctg.
I think that Remington and S&W both needed to do more aggressive marketing. I've seen few ads from them dating from those days. But I thonk the Colt winning the govt. trials, the way it fits most people, and the power of the .45 Colt ctg. made it the winner.
I've never handled the old S&W top-breaks much, and would like to. The Remington feels less good in my hands, but I hate tightening screws on Colts & on Webley trigger guards. Maybe they used shellac on them to avoid that?
I think the Merwin & Hulbert was too advanced and complicated, like modern Dan Wessons. And it's ugly!
Excuse any errors. No time to proofread; I'm off to watch a TV show!
Now, if you've read, "The Silence of the Lambs" by Thos. Harris, you may recall Dr. Lecter asking Clarice what we covet. Well, we cherish and aspire to what we see. I think most people saw more Colts from 1870-1900 than any other brand.
The handling qualities of S&W guns, with the long reach to the hammer hurt sales, I'm sure, and I know for sure that many even now think the Colt was more rugged, whether it was or not.
The Colt was much favored for presumed ruggedness overseas, too. Read, "King Solomon's Mines", originally published about 1883. The author, Sir Henry Rider Haggrd, was a veteran of the Second Zulu War in 1879, and if you know the Zulu tribal structure, his Kukuana (sp?) people were in most respects patterned after the Zulu. (I know this because I wrote a paper on the Zulu in a college anthropology class.) In the book, not in the five or so movies based on it, the explorers used Colt SAA .45's. We know they were .45's because he said they used "the heavier pattern of cartridge" when only .45 Colt and .44/40 were available in that model. They also had Win. '73's and some English BP Express rifles for heavier game. The .44 Winchestrs were for native attacks and smaller buck. Haggard was actually pretty gun-knowledgeable, and he had seen service in South Africa. He may have been aware of the 10,000 Remington .44's sold to the British-controlled govt. of Egypt, but would know that .44 Remington ammo was scarce in most lands. I suspect that it was very hard to find outside of the USA and the Egyptian military, although we know that the American Chief of Scouts Frederick Burnham in the 2nd Boer War of 1899-1902 carried the .44 Remington M-1875 that he'd used in AZ. The British Army made him Chief of Scouts with the rank of Major, despite his being American, and he was probably Lord Baden-Powell's inpiration for founding the Boy Scouts. But Fred Burnham is the only man I've read about using the Remington, and it failed Army rusting tests, although they were probably excessive for real life situations. The Remington also has a shorter hammer spur and fits most hands less well than does the Colt SAA.
I exchanged letters with the late British gun authority Geoffrey Boothroyd, whose, "The Handgun" is a monumental item that no gun enthusiat should be without. He noted that if the British had made more movies about their forces in India, the Webley revolvers would be better thought of. I'm sure he ws right, and the better finished Webleys meant for private purchase by officers were really nice guns, and the stirrup lock was stronger than that on S&W's.
The S&W wore more and was probably too weak for heavy use with .44-40 ammo and would have been perceived as too weak for that ctg.
I think that Remington and S&W both needed to do more aggressive marketing. I've seen few ads from them dating from those days. But I thonk the Colt winning the govt. trials, the way it fits most people, and the power of the .45 Colt ctg. made it the winner.
I've never handled the old S&W top-breaks much, and would like to. The Remington feels less good in my hands, but I hate tightening screws on Colts & on Webley trigger guards. Maybe they used shellac on them to avoid that?
I think the Merwin & Hulbert was too advanced and complicated, like modern Dan Wessons. And it's ugly!
Excuse any errors. No time to proofread; I'm off to watch a TV show!
Last edited:
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Oh, go ahead and call me out by name! I'm tough enough to handle corrections!
I MEANT the Model 10. Which came out in 1899, by the way. I probably had the Model 67 on my mind from another string. I appologize for that!
The Model 10 was a self-cocking (double action) wonder of it's time.
Their Model 3 came out in 1872 and was a single action.
So, as you can see, S&W DID use model numbers very early on in their history.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
That wouldn't have been an issue. The .44WCF used a lighter bullet and would've produced no more pressure than any other blackpowder cartridge of the period. Cartridge length probably would've been a problem though.
The above criticisms of the big S&W revolvers are valid, but the main reason S&W's were not more popular in the frontier days was that they weren't there. S&W effectively took themselves out of the frontier gun business by securing contracts with Russia, Turkey, and Japan for just about all the large caliber revolvers they could make. They missed out on the "gun that won the West" business, but they made tons of money and, after all, that is what a company is for, not to provide frontier icons for the movies that would come along in 30 years or so.
Jim
Jim
Tallbald
Member
Does anyone remember an episode of an old TV cowboy series (1960's) where the main character was injured and found himself without his beloved rifle? He did have an SAA Colt I seem to remember, with the grip panels broken off. So he takes a split board of some sort that was handy where he found himself hunkered down, jams the grip frame into the split at the end and uses the board as a support stock essentially turning the SAA into a carbine. Even as a kid I remember wondering if the film company had to register the combination and have a tax stamp for the setup as a "short barreled rifle" before filming. Boy at age 12 I sure was a gun nerd LOL. Don
jimbo555
Member
Tallbald,I think that was an episode of Bat Masterson.I remember the same scene!
DNS
Member
Yep, that was an episode of The Rifleman.
Forehand and Wadsworth was a big seller but largely forgotten nowadays. They gave the handguns catchy names too and the one that comes to mind was the "Swamp Angel".
I've always wanted a pair of the F/W sidelock .22s for wall hangers.
Forehand and Wadsworth was a big seller but largely forgotten nowadays. They gave the handguns catchy names too and the one that comes to mind was the "Swamp Angel".
I've always wanted a pair of the F/W sidelock .22s for wall hangers.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Howdy Again
I have been away from my computer for a few days. I would like to chime in again with a few comments, opinions, and answers to what has been posted since I last checked this thread.
They did. S&W brought back the Schofield in the year 2000. I forget how many were made, not a whole lot, but they all sold out. There were a few minor changes, including the firing pin was moved to the frame. And the gas collar arrangement was changed so they were dogs when shot with Black Powder. But don't look for them to do it again, they have moved on to other things.
The trigger pulls on my original 2nd Model Russian and 1st Model Schofield are bears. I have not tried measuring them with a trigger pull gauge, but I would bet they are in the neighborhood of around 10 to 12 pounds. Heavy enough that when I shot the guns off the bench on sandbags the first time my hand was trembling as I tried to squeeze the triggers, pretty much ruining any accuracy. I must confess I am used to the 2 1/2 pound triggers on my Colts and Rugers. I doubt I will be doing anything about the trigger pull on the Russian, but I will probably lighten up the Schofield trigger pull as I intend to occasionally shoot it in Cowboy Action. The Russian is just too awkward to shoot very often.
My New Model Number Three, on the other hand has a very light, crisp trigger pull. But the New Model No. 3 was the premier target gun of its day. More on that later.
44 Russian was the premier chambering that S&W offered in their large frame Top Breaks. The American was not chambered for it, as the cartridge had not been invented yet, and the Schofield was only chambered for the 45 Schofield round. The 44 Russian round was developed at the request of the Russians because they did not like the dirt and contamination that would commonly accumulate on the soft lube applied to the outside of a heeled bullet. Some of the Russians were also chambered for the 44 Henry Rimfire cartridge, mostly those of the Turkish contracts. The primary chamberings of the New Model Number Three and the Double Action 44 were 44 Russian, however the New Model #3 was also chambered for many other cartridges.
However, it is true that the cylinders were originally not long enough for the 44-40 cartridge. The cylinders on the Russian Model and the Schofield were 1 7/16" long. I have not measured one, but I suspect that the cylinders of the American Model were also this length. This is probably the reason S&W opted to create a new shorter cartridge than the 45 Colt when they created the Schofield Model, I suspect they did not want to change their tooling. I have no evidence of this, it is just my suspicion. But the shorter chamber length of the Schofield model was its downfall. Anyway, I suspect S&W learned from the Schofield episode and they did offer 44-40 and 38-40 chamberings of both the New Model Number Three and the Double Action 44 with 1 9/16" long cylinders. They also 'stretched' the frames an appropriate amount to house the longer cylinders.
As has been pointed out, a 44-40 cylinder cannot be converted to 44 Russian. The 44-40 chamber is much wider at its base than the 44 Russian chamber.
Yes, a solid frame revolver will always be stronger than a hinged frame, however with Black Powder pressures this is not so much of a concern. Most of the problems I have seen with Top Break revolvers being shot loose is because they were fired with Smokeless Powder. They were fine with Black Powder.
The S&W New Model Number Three was the premier target pistol of its day. It was the culmination of the S&W Top Break design. It featured a light trigger pull, a rebounding hammer, and an improved extractor mechanism. It was first introduced in 1878 and cataloged until 1908. Colt introduced the Bisley version of the SAA in 1894 to compete with the New Model #3. The New Model #3 was also offered in some special 32 and 38 target calibers. These were the 32-44 and 38-44 cartridges, the latter is not to be confused with the 38/44 high velocity rounds of the 1930s. These were special long cartridges with brass that extended for the entire length of the cylinder. There was no chamber throat, and no 'jump' for a bullet to get to the rifling. Pistol shooting records were set with these guns that still stand today.
To do a quick cleaning at the range it would be a simple matter to break open the gun and remove the cylinder. The cylinder is removed by lifting the frame latch and rotating the cylinder counter-clockwise while pulling back slightly. It comes right off. One would not clean the bore without cleaning the cylinder chambers too, which is easier if the cylinder is in hand. Of course it is not particularly difficult to field clean a SAA either. By 1892 the current side latch started to appear on several target models. Just set the hammer to half cock, open the gate, depress the latch, pull the pin forward and pull out the cylinder. Of course, a Colt has to be cleaned from the muzzle if using a straight cleaning rod.
The relevant patent is the Rollin White patent for chambers bored through cylinders to accept metallic cartridges. White was a former Colt employee. Colt foolishly rejected the idea, so White patented it on his own. In 1857 Smith and Wesson attempted to buy the rights to the patent, but White refused to sell. Instead he licensed S&W to produce revolvers using his patent. S&W paid him a royalty of $.25 on every revolver they produced. The White patent expired in 1869. The expiration of the White patent inspired S&W to design their first Top Break revolver, the 44 caliber American model. It of course featured the automatic ejection that was common to all the Top Breaks. Colt did not get around to releasing a revolver designed specifically for cartridges until 1873.
I don't know where this myth about the Merwin and Hulbert came from. Perhaps because not too many people have actually had a chance to handle one. The lockwork of a single action MH is no different than the lockwork of a single action S&W.
Here is a photo of the lockwork of a MH with the hammer all the way down.
Here it is at full cock.
Here are similar photos of the lock work of my Schofield:
Granted, the mechanism that allows the barrel and cylinder to pull forward for unloading are unusual, but there is nothing more complicated or more precise to them than there is with the ejection mechanism of a Top Break S&W. Frankly, ejecting and reloading is simpler with the S&W than with the MH.
Sorry, but you have your facts wrong. This is a common mistake with S&W nomenclature. The revolver that S&W introduced in 1899 was known as the 38 Military and Police 1st Model, also know as the Model 1899. It was followed by the Models 1902 and 1905, also known as the Military and Police models. It was not until 1957, when S&W changed over to Model Numbers that the 38 M&P became known as the Model 10. This is a very common mistake, I see M&Ps labeled as Model 10s all the time in gun shows and in gun stores.
The term Number 3 refers to frame size, not a specific model. As I mentioned earlier, there were 5 distinct models built on the Number 3 frame; the American Model, the Russian Model, the Schofield, the New Model Number Three, and the Double Action 44. Here is a link to an excellent web page that describes the 5 different revolvers built on the Number Three frame.
http://www.armchairgunshow.com/Mod3-info.html
Now very early, starting in 1857, S&W did refer to their Tip Up revolvers by frame size. There was the Number 1, the Number 2, then the inbetween size Number 1 1/2. But this was only with the Tip Ups. By the time they started making the Top Breaks, frame size was not what defined their revolvers.
I have been away from my computer for a few days. I would like to chime in again with a few comments, opinions, and answers to what has been posted since I last checked this thread.
They did. S&W brought back the Schofield in the year 2000. I forget how many were made, not a whole lot, but they all sold out. There were a few minor changes, including the firing pin was moved to the frame. And the gas collar arrangement was changed so they were dogs when shot with Black Powder. But don't look for them to do it again, they have moved on to other things.
The trigger pulls on my original 2nd Model Russian and 1st Model Schofield are bears. I have not tried measuring them with a trigger pull gauge, but I would bet they are in the neighborhood of around 10 to 12 pounds. Heavy enough that when I shot the guns off the bench on sandbags the first time my hand was trembling as I tried to squeeze the triggers, pretty much ruining any accuracy. I must confess I am used to the 2 1/2 pound triggers on my Colts and Rugers. I doubt I will be doing anything about the trigger pull on the Russian, but I will probably lighten up the Schofield trigger pull as I intend to occasionally shoot it in Cowboy Action. The Russian is just too awkward to shoot very often.
My New Model Number Three, on the other hand has a very light, crisp trigger pull. But the New Model No. 3 was the premier target gun of its day. More on that later.
44 Russian was the premier chambering that S&W offered in their large frame Top Breaks. The American was not chambered for it, as the cartridge had not been invented yet, and the Schofield was only chambered for the 45 Schofield round. The 44 Russian round was developed at the request of the Russians because they did not like the dirt and contamination that would commonly accumulate on the soft lube applied to the outside of a heeled bullet. Some of the Russians were also chambered for the 44 Henry Rimfire cartridge, mostly those of the Turkish contracts. The primary chamberings of the New Model Number Three and the Double Action 44 were 44 Russian, however the New Model #3 was also chambered for many other cartridges.
However, it is true that the cylinders were originally not long enough for the 44-40 cartridge. The cylinders on the Russian Model and the Schofield were 1 7/16" long. I have not measured one, but I suspect that the cylinders of the American Model were also this length. This is probably the reason S&W opted to create a new shorter cartridge than the 45 Colt when they created the Schofield Model, I suspect they did not want to change their tooling. I have no evidence of this, it is just my suspicion. But the shorter chamber length of the Schofield model was its downfall. Anyway, I suspect S&W learned from the Schofield episode and they did offer 44-40 and 38-40 chamberings of both the New Model Number Three and the Double Action 44 with 1 9/16" long cylinders. They also 'stretched' the frames an appropriate amount to house the longer cylinders.
As has been pointed out, a 44-40 cylinder cannot be converted to 44 Russian. The 44-40 chamber is much wider at its base than the 44 Russian chamber.
Yes, a solid frame revolver will always be stronger than a hinged frame, however with Black Powder pressures this is not so much of a concern. Most of the problems I have seen with Top Break revolvers being shot loose is because they were fired with Smokeless Powder. They were fine with Black Powder.
The Texas Rangers in fact did not like the SAA chambered for 44-40. Yes, there were some problems with the tapered cartridge forcing its way back when fired. However 44-40 was the second most popular cartridge the SAA was chambered for, second only to 45 Colt, so they must have gotten something right.
The S&W New Model Number Three was the premier target pistol of its day. It was the culmination of the S&W Top Break design. It featured a light trigger pull, a rebounding hammer, and an improved extractor mechanism. It was first introduced in 1878 and cataloged until 1908. Colt introduced the Bisley version of the SAA in 1894 to compete with the New Model #3. The New Model #3 was also offered in some special 32 and 38 target calibers. These were the 32-44 and 38-44 cartridges, the latter is not to be confused with the 38/44 high velocity rounds of the 1930s. These were special long cartridges with brass that extended for the entire length of the cylinder. There was no chamber throat, and no 'jump' for a bullet to get to the rifling. Pistol shooting records were set with these guns that still stand today.
To do a quick cleaning at the range it would be a simple matter to break open the gun and remove the cylinder. The cylinder is removed by lifting the frame latch and rotating the cylinder counter-clockwise while pulling back slightly. It comes right off. One would not clean the bore without cleaning the cylinder chambers too, which is easier if the cylinder is in hand. Of course it is not particularly difficult to field clean a SAA either. By 1892 the current side latch started to appear on several target models. Just set the hammer to half cock, open the gate, depress the latch, pull the pin forward and pull out the cylinder. Of course, a Colt has to be cleaned from the muzzle if using a straight cleaning rod.
The relevant patent is the Rollin White patent for chambers bored through cylinders to accept metallic cartridges. White was a former Colt employee. Colt foolishly rejected the idea, so White patented it on his own. In 1857 Smith and Wesson attempted to buy the rights to the patent, but White refused to sell. Instead he licensed S&W to produce revolvers using his patent. S&W paid him a royalty of $.25 on every revolver they produced. The White patent expired in 1869. The expiration of the White patent inspired S&W to design their first Top Break revolver, the 44 caliber American model. It of course featured the automatic ejection that was common to all the Top Breaks. Colt did not get around to releasing a revolver designed specifically for cartridges until 1873.
I don't know where this myth about the Merwin and Hulbert came from. Perhaps because not too many people have actually had a chance to handle one. The lockwork of a single action MH is no different than the lockwork of a single action S&W.
Here is a photo of the lockwork of a MH with the hammer all the way down.
Here it is at full cock.
Here are similar photos of the lock work of my Schofield:
Granted, the mechanism that allows the barrel and cylinder to pull forward for unloading are unusual, but there is nothing more complicated or more precise to them than there is with the ejection mechanism of a Top Break S&W. Frankly, ejecting and reloading is simpler with the S&W than with the MH.
Sorry, but you have your facts wrong. This is a common mistake with S&W nomenclature. The revolver that S&W introduced in 1899 was known as the 38 Military and Police 1st Model, also know as the Model 1899. It was followed by the Models 1902 and 1905, also known as the Military and Police models. It was not until 1957, when S&W changed over to Model Numbers that the 38 M&P became known as the Model 10. This is a very common mistake, I see M&Ps labeled as Model 10s all the time in gun shows and in gun stores.
The term Number 3 refers to frame size, not a specific model. As I mentioned earlier, there were 5 distinct models built on the Number 3 frame; the American Model, the Russian Model, the Schofield, the New Model Number Three, and the Double Action 44. Here is a link to an excellent web page that describes the 5 different revolvers built on the Number Three frame.
http://www.armchairgunshow.com/Mod3-info.html
Now very early, starting in 1857, S&W did refer to their Tip Up revolvers by frame size. There was the Number 1, the Number 2, then the inbetween size Number 1 1/2. But this was only with the Tip Ups. By the time they started making the Top Breaks, frame size was not what defined their revolvers.
Last edited:
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I stand corrected again!
But did S&W not use model numbers before 1957? Your own reference link seems to indicate that:
"In 1878, S&W discontinued production of it's other Model 3's – the American, Russian, and Schofield – in favor a new improved design called the New Model Number Three."
I did a little more research and did run across the S&W change to Model numbers in 1957. But it seems to be a little bit confusing to me. Are you saying that before 1957, any reference to a "model" had to do with frame size and not a style/design of gun? I'm not finding anything that explicitly tells me one way or the other on this.
I'm beginning to suspect that my problem might be that since the change to model numbers in 1957, this methodology has overshadowed the original nomenclature for some of the earlier guns. For instance, I find LOTS of reference to S&W's "Model 1", but only the odd reference to "Smith & Wesson Seven Shooter". Still...terms like "The New Model 1" was used as far back as the Civil War:
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/s-w-model-1-third-issue
Can you shed any light on this for me?
Driftwood Johnson
Member
YES!!!
If you see a reference to a particular number, such as #1 1/2, # 2 or #3, it is talking about a generic size of the frame. Not a specific model. This holds true with all the Top Breaks. But when S&W started building the Hand Ejectors, the guns with a cylinder that swings to the side, then frame size was identified by a letter designation, such as J, K, N, and a few others. And a K model did not define anything. A K framed gun could be a K-22, a K-38, an M&P, a 32-20 Handejector, and a whole lot more.
As I said after the photos, in the very early days, the Tip Up revolvers were referred to by frame size. The very first was the Number One, the tiny seven shot 22. It was built in three different models over the years, the First Issue, the Second Issue, and the Third Issue. Then they made a six shot 32 RF revolver. It was the largest Tip Up they ever produced, other than some experimental models. Since the #1 size was already taken, they called the 32 the Number 2. Also known as the Old Army. After the Civil War was over, S&W realized there would be a demand for a pocket pistol of 32 caliber, so they made one half way between the #1 and #2 in size. Five shots, 32 RF. Since #1 and #2 were already spoken for, this became the #1 1/2.
Here is a photo showing the relative sizes of the three Tip Up models.
But once they started making Top Breaks, S&W abandoned defining them by size. There were many different Top Break models built on the #1 1/2, #2 and #3 size frames. Don't be confused when some folks say Model 3 and others say #3. It simply refers to the size of the frame, it is not a specific model. As I always say, all Schofields are #3s, but not all #3s are Schofields. It's not like today, when, very generally speaking, almost any model can be built on a K frame. In the Top Break days, the frames of the different models of the same size were very different. They were not interchangeable. Study the photos and you will see that.
Here are three #3s in my collection. They are all built on the #3 size frame. They are all #3s. But look how different they are. Nothing at all interchangeable about these frames. Top to bottom, New Model Number Three, 2nd Model Russian, 44 Double Action. All six shooters, all chambered for the 44 Russian cartridge, but all very different. And all built on the #3 size frame.
If you really want to understand this stuff, stop futzing around on the internet and buy this book. It will explain everything.
http://www.amazon.com/Standard-Catalog-Smith-Wesson/dp/089689293X
Last edited:
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Sweet! Thanks! That clears up a lot.
I've added the book to my Wish List on Amazon. Next time I get some other stuff, I'll add that to the list.
I've added the book to my Wish List on Amazon. Next time I get some other stuff, I'll add that to the list.
Driftwood-
I tried to find where you described the trigger pulls but can't locate it in the time I have just now. Did you say that only the NM # 3 had a decent trigger pull? If so, that'd really hurt sales. Most people don't want to pay a gunsmith to lighten a pull, and money was often tight then, too, as with many shooters today.
I suspect that the .44 Russian was adequuate as a stopper at normal pistol distances, but would it or the .44-40 penetrate and stop big animals better?
I'm referring only to factory ammo.
As you surely know, the .44 Special in factory form has the same ballistics as the .44 Russian. Sasha Siemel mentioned using S&W .44 revolvers in his books about hunting jaguars, etc. in Brazil from about 1917-maybe 1960 or so. But he never said if they were chambered in .44 Special or in .44-40, although he did say that S&W .44's were popular in Brazil, and he worked on them a lot as a gunsmith, as the average man there didn't care properly for his guns.
Siemel owned a M-92 Winchester in .44-40. But he never said if it used the same ammo as his S&W .44's. Photos show his gun in a flap holster, and all I can tell is that it probably had a 6.5-inch barrel. (A photo of him holding a revolver in hand is of a long .357.) I think he had either or both a Triple Lock or a Second Model Hand Ejector .44.
If one had to shoot tapir or jaguar with a .44, would the .44 Russian/Special suffice, with just some 750 FPS? The .44-40 had only a 200 grain bullet as against the 246 grainer of the Special, but delivered over 900 FPS, as near as I can learn.
Come to that, had Sherlock Holmes's Hound of the Baskervilles had to be shot with a .44 Russian, would it likely suffice with a frontal chest shot? I'd prefer the .45 Colt! I seriously doubt that Holmes's .450 with short barrel or Dr. Watson's service revolver, probably also a .450, given when he retired from the Army, would prove equal to the task. Big dogs are hard to kill.
Anyone who might have to kill a big anmal might prefer the .45 Colt, which S&W didn't offer.
BTW, I have the book you mentioned, all three editions, as well as other S&W and general gun books. Boothroyd's, "The Handgun" is among the best, but doesn't address this power issue. Elmer Keith obviously considered the factory .44 Special to be weak and wrote that before the .44 Magnum appeared, the .45 Colt would be his choice in factory-loaded handgun ammo.
I tried to find where you described the trigger pulls but can't locate it in the time I have just now. Did you say that only the NM # 3 had a decent trigger pull? If so, that'd really hurt sales. Most people don't want to pay a gunsmith to lighten a pull, and money was often tight then, too, as with many shooters today.
I suspect that the .44 Russian was adequuate as a stopper at normal pistol distances, but would it or the .44-40 penetrate and stop big animals better?
I'm referring only to factory ammo.
As you surely know, the .44 Special in factory form has the same ballistics as the .44 Russian. Sasha Siemel mentioned using S&W .44 revolvers in his books about hunting jaguars, etc. in Brazil from about 1917-maybe 1960 or so. But he never said if they were chambered in .44 Special or in .44-40, although he did say that S&W .44's were popular in Brazil, and he worked on them a lot as a gunsmith, as the average man there didn't care properly for his guns.
Siemel owned a M-92 Winchester in .44-40. But he never said if it used the same ammo as his S&W .44's. Photos show his gun in a flap holster, and all I can tell is that it probably had a 6.5-inch barrel. (A photo of him holding a revolver in hand is of a long .357.) I think he had either or both a Triple Lock or a Second Model Hand Ejector .44.
If one had to shoot tapir or jaguar with a .44, would the .44 Russian/Special suffice, with just some 750 FPS? The .44-40 had only a 200 grain bullet as against the 246 grainer of the Special, but delivered over 900 FPS, as near as I can learn.
Come to that, had Sherlock Holmes's Hound of the Baskervilles had to be shot with a .44 Russian, would it likely suffice with a frontal chest shot? I'd prefer the .45 Colt! I seriously doubt that Holmes's .450 with short barrel or Dr. Watson's service revolver, probably also a .450, given when he retired from the Army, would prove equal to the task. Big dogs are hard to kill.
Anyone who might have to kill a big anmal might prefer the .45 Colt, which S&W didn't offer.
BTW, I have the book you mentioned, all three editions, as well as other S&W and general gun books. Boothroyd's, "The Handgun" is among the best, but doesn't address this power issue. Elmer Keith obviously considered the factory .44 Special to be weak and wrote that before the .44 Magnum appeared, the .45 Colt would be his choice in factory-loaded handgun ammo.
Last edited:
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Not as beautiful as a Colt but certainly not what I would call ugly.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Howdy
Yes, the trigger pull on my Russian and Schofield are bears. The trigger pull on my New Model Number three is very light, and so are the trigger pulls on both of my Double Action 44s. I dunno about how satisfied folks would have been with heavy trigger pulls in the late 1800s, I suspect that most did not really care. Only target shooters would really care. Most of the time these guns were bought for self protection, not target shooting. The New Model Number Three did double duty. It was a fine large frame revolver, and it was a superb target pistol.
The most serious of the target shooters bought the New Model Number Three Target Models. These were equipped with a tall blade front sight with a bead on it, and a rear sight that was adjustable for windage, not for elevation. These guns came in the special 32-44 and 38-44 chamberings that I mentioned earlier. There were only 4,333 of these guns made.
As far as the 44 Russian cartridge and the 44-40 are concerned, the 44-40 had far more powder capacity than the 44 Russian. I normally load the 44-40 with 2.2CC of Schuetzen Black Powder, which works out to about 33.3 grains, under a 200 grain bullet. This, by the way is the exact same charge I put into a 45 Colt, with the exception that I use a 250 grain bullet in 45 Colt. No, you really can't fit 40 grains into them anymore because the case capacity of modern solid head brass is less than the old balloon head and folded rim cases. Not unless you compress the dickens out of the powder. 44 Russian, by way of comparison, I load with 1.3 CC of Schuetzen, around 19.5 grains, under the same 200 grain bullet. That should tell you something about the relative power of the two rounds. 44 Russian cartridges loaded like this are very mild and pleasant to shoot in a heavy Top Break revolver. Not a whole lot more recoil than a standard 38 Special load. A bit more, but not much.
Sorry, I have absolutely no idea of what damage modern Smokeless loads would do in game, I am not a hunter. But the 44-40 probably took more deer than any other rifle cartridge, so I would suspect it was a good bit stouter than 44 Russian.
Here is a photo that demonstrates the relative size, and powder capacity of some of the old 44 and 45 caliber rounds. Left to right they are 44-40, 44 Special, 44 Russian, 44 S&W American (the heeled bullet round), 44 Henry Rimfire, 45 Schofield, and 45 Colt. When loaded with Black Powder, the cases were filled with powder, so cartridge size is a pretty good indicator of relative power.
If the author you mention was using revolvers like the 44 Hand Ejector 1st Model (Triple Lock), 44 Hand Ejector 2nd Model and 44 Hand Ejector 3rd Model, and they were chambered for a 44 caliber cartridge, it was most likely the 44 Special. The great majority of these revolvers were chambered for 44 Special. The cartridge was designed specifically for the Triple Lock and they were introduced together in 1908. Of course, there were other chamberings. The SCSW reports the Triple Lock was factory chambered for 44 Special, 44 Russian (yes, that surprised me too), 44-40, 455 Mark II, 38-40, and something called 45 S&W Special. I'm not quite sure what that was. And 23 were reported to have been chambered for 45 Colt. But the great majority were 44 Special. A few 44 Special Triple Locks even had auxiliary cylinders for 44-40, but not very many.
Less variety with the 2nd Model, still mostly 44 Special, but some also chambered for 44-40, 45 Colt, and 38-40. And don't forget that some of these guns were chambered for the 455 Mark II for the British market. I have a 2nd Model that left the factory chambered for the 455 cartridge. It has Canadian acceptance marks. It shipped in 1918. At some point, it was converted to 44 Special with a new cylinder and barrel.
But the great majority of these guns were chambered for 44 Special.
Elmer was a little bit nuts. He was trying to shot deer with a revolver from great distances. I'm sure if he stood in front of a 44 Special, he would not have thought it was so weak. He blew up a 45 Colt SAA with his high power experimental loads, so he went to the 44 Special because chamber walls would be a little bit thicker. Personally, the 44 Mag is much more gun than I like to shoot, I much prefer a 44 Special.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Elmer Keith never condoned shooting unwounded animals at long distances. He shot a wounded mule deer at 600yds with a 6½" S&W .44Mag after the hunter he was guiding wounded it and ran his rifle dry. He connected on two of six rounds. Keith believed the sixgun was a weapon of opportunity, to be used while you were doing something else and did not have a long gun handy.
The .45 he blew up was an early blackpowder model, a military surplus SAA that had probably been rebuilt several times. The load he blew it with was with a .45-70 bullet cut down to 300gr and stuffed over a caseful of blackpowder. Not one of his experimental smokeless loads with Dupont #80.
Thanks, both of you!
Sasha Siemel wasn't your average Brazilian: he emigrated there with his brother from Latvia about 1917. He was deeply interested in firearms, and became acquainted with D.B. Wesson, who sent him a .357 when that gun was developed.
Siemel achieved fame by spearing big jaguars, but he also used guns.
He married an Americn girl whom he met on a lecture tour n PA. He was 38; she was 18. One of his books shows her with a jacare (caiman) that she shot with an arrow.
If you can locate a copy of his book, "Tigrero!", it's a fascinating read.
Sasha Siemel wasn't your average Brazilian: he emigrated there with his brother from Latvia about 1917. He was deeply interested in firearms, and became acquainted with D.B. Wesson, who sent him a .357 when that gun was developed.
Siemel achieved fame by spearing big jaguars, but he also used guns.
He married an Americn girl whom he met on a lecture tour n PA. He was 38; she was 18. One of his books shows her with a jacare (caiman) that she shot with an arrow.
If you can locate a copy of his book, "Tigrero!", it's a fascinating read.
Just to add some fun to the S&W name game, someone at S&W once told me the letters (I, K, N - there was no J or L at that time) actually designated the forging dies, not the finished frames, which varied based on the machine operations performed on the forgings.
Also, I think that .45 S&W Special might have been the Army's Model 1909 cartridge. One report has it that S&W considered making the .44 HE in that caliber but gave it up when the M1911 pistol was adopted and the M1909 revolver and cartridge became a dead end. (The Model 1909 cartridge was made for the Model 1909 revolver and was essentially the .45 Colt with a larger diameter rim.)
Jim
Also, I think that .45 S&W Special might have been the Army's Model 1909 cartridge. One report has it that S&W considered making the .44 HE in that caliber but gave it up when the M1911 pistol was adopted and the M1909 revolver and cartridge became a dead end. (The Model 1909 cartridge was made for the Model 1909 revolver and was essentially the .45 Colt with a larger diameter rim.)
Jim
farm23
Member
WOW what a treasure of knowledge. Is there some way to book mark this thread for future reference? By the way I meet Elmer when I was in college. His book "Sixguns" is a classic.
- Status
