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.
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.
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.
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!
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 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.
It'd be pretty freakin' sweet if s&w brought back its single actions, even if only on a limited run basis.
Three more questions:
How are the trigger pulls on those Smith SA top-breaks?
Does anyone know why the .44 WCF chambering was not popular and why many were reportedly converted to .44 Russian?
Am I correct in assuming that even the black powder Model Ps were stronger?
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.2. Some people had problems with the .44 WCF-.44-40 in the Colt's. I've heard stories that some guns cylinders would lock up.
Slightly off-topic but according to A.C. Gould's book, Modern American Pistols and Revolvers, first published in 1888, many of the target shooters of the day preferred The Smith & Wesson top breaks to the Colt Single-Action. Both the Smith and the Colt were equally accurate, but these revolvers had a tendency to lose that fine edge of accuracy quickly with black powder fouling. The Smith top break was more easily cleaned on the firing line by breaking the action and running a cleaning rod in from the breech, while to accomplish the same thing, the cylinder had to be removed from the Colt.
One needs to also consider the patent dates on the various mechanisms and designs back in the 1800's. I'm no scholar on this subject, but it had a great impact as to what manufacturers could make legally. There were patent laws even back then.
I think the Merwin & Hulbert was too advanced and complicated, like modern Dan Wessons. And it's ugly!
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.
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.
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 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.
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.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.