Were Marlin and Harrington Richardson revolvers really that bad?

I've owned a couple of H&R's over the years. I didn't think they were too bad. They certainly weren't S&W's or Colts, but they were functional, reliable guns for their time period, and for the money spent. The 999 top break 22 especially was a very good gun IMHO. I had one, and foolishly sold it to a fellow who wanted it "for his daughter."

Interesting bunch of books in the link.
Mr. Bennet writes with a smug arrogance that is annoying to say the least.
H&R only lasted another 100 years or so after that was written. Whatever they were doing before or after that was written must have worked.

kidneyboy said:

Mr. Bennet writes with a smug arrogance that is annoying to say the least.

Click to expand...

Well, that is a characteristic of many self-branded and self-promoting "shooting experts" that has not changed in the internet era.

.455_Hunter said:

Well, that is a characteristic of many self-branded and self-promoting "shooting experts" that has not changed in the internet era.

Click to expand...

I don’t know that he is arrogant, part of it is the writing style of the day. I know there is interest in such revolvers these days but what the author says is true. From his standpoint of a target and sporting shooter nothing by H&R or Marlin would fit the bill as a range gun then. They are and were always an inexpensive, entry level means of self defense using low powered cartridges. They are not of the same quality of a Smith or Colt. That being said, they were never intended for shooting competition. Fun to collect, shoot on a rare occasion, restore etc, but not top shelf by any stretch.

kidneyboy said:

Interesting bunch of books in the link.
Mr. Bennet writes with a smug arrogance that is annoying to say the least.
H&R only lasted another 100 years or so after that was written. Whatever they were doing before or after that was written must have worked.

Click to expand...

“Mr. Bennet?”

You are talking about the Mighty AC Gould, my friend, the founder and proprietor of a little old magazine called American Rifleman.


AC Gould

pairof44sp said:

“Mr. Bennet?”

You are talking about the Mighty AC Gould, my friend, the founder and proprietor of a little old magazine called American Rifleman.

View attachment 990823
AC Gould

Click to expand...

Gould was the editor and Bennet the writer.

kidneyboy said:

Gould was the editor and Bennet the writer.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction

I stand uncorrected.

When I broke into bullseye competition, several shooters shot H&R top breaks, one of which was elaborately engraved. And they were well respected shooters with several awards. The others shot either S&W K-38s or Colt Officers Model Match. And then entered a neophyte, me, with a Ruger Blackhawk.

Bob Wright

I have always viewed IJ/H&R/H&A/F&W as being the Kel-Tec equivalents of the day. Reliable and durable enough to gain basic proficiency with the weapon, but not intended for 100 round monthly range visits.

Kleanbore said:

I encountered enough of them chambered for .32 S&W that had been owned by non shooters, but that were badly worn mechanically, to have little regard for them.

Click to expand...

No doubt many of them wore quickly, but this was definitely the era of buying the gun and a 50 round box of cartridges (probably approaching the cost of the gun itself- we have been spoiled with cheap ammo for 50 years). Five or ten rounds might get shot in the near term for "practice", with the remainder expended over the next couple decades on the 4th of July in batches of one to five rounds per year.

My 1870's H&A Ranger #2 in .32 RF, 1900ish .38 US Revolver (IJ) DAO and ~1915 IJ 3rd Model .32 are still fully serviceable.

It seems odd to me Mr. Gould mentions the minor and obscure American Arms company, but ignores the Iver Johnson company. American Arms soon faded away, but IJ eventually produced huge numbers of revolvers that were at least the equal of H&R. Perhaps 1888 was a bit early for Iver Johnson to be really well known, but they got their start in the 1870's, just like Harrington & Richardson. So did Hopkins & Allen, and as sleepysquirrel2 notes, their absence is also peculiar.

In fact, judging from those that have survived the 130+ years from 1888 until now, very few of the inexpensive top breaks of the time were dangerous guns to shoot. There is certainly no very bad word-of-mouth concerning those that are fired today. They may not go off, they may not hit much, but they are not very dangerous to the shooter.

Perhaps he was thinking of the single-action pull-pin revolvers that were for sale then for about $1.50, give or take 50 cents. They were later called "Suicide Specials" in a book written about them in the 1950's. (Ed Buffaloe has done a good article about them at his Unblinking Eye website: https://unblinkingeye.com/Guns/SSs/sss.html )

Gould reminds me of the threads we have here about the cast-zinc automatics that have been around in the US since the Raven 25 caliber pistol hit the market around 1970. Many guns of that type are mediocre, some are poor (I'm looking at you, Lorcin), some are decent (the Raven itself, by most accounts), and some seem to be very good value for the money, like High Point.

Yet there are people who dismiss all of them as junk. They may be willing to say some are worse junk than others, but they pretty much despise the lot. I would say Gould was, in his time, one of those people.

Thanks for posting this, sleepysquirrel2. Among other things, it reminds us that while the clowns change, the circus stays much the same.

PS - Indirectly, Gould does mention Hopkins & Allen. They were the actual makers of the Merwin & Hulbert revolvers.

I compare my IJ 2nd model 'safety automatic' 5-shooter to my S&W lemon squeezer, and the difference in quality of steel is immediately apparent, as is the more sophisticated double action mechanism. That said, the IJ has never failed me. If I were a working man making $1/day the appeal of the $6 IJ against the ~$20 S&W would probably be decisive.

Header mentioned something about Marlin Revolvers?
Im betting youd find more Marlin marked Ice Skates than you will find Marlin marked revolvers.

Rex in OTZ said:

Header mentioned something about Marlin Revolvers?
Im betting youd find more Marlin marked Ice Skates than you will find Marlin marked revolvers.

Click to expand...

Marlin made revolvers for quite some time, starting with copies of S&W tip-ups and finally producing a high-quality clone of S&W's 38 double-action top-break. They stopped before 1910, I think, so it's not surprising that their revolvers are largely forgotten now.

PS - According to this: http://www.lasc.us/fryxellstoryofmarlin.htm, Marlin made pistols as soon as the company was founded in 1870.

Maybe I read this wrong, but, he seemed to like "the Smith & Wesson, Colt’s, Merwin & Hulbert, and Remington".

Then he said the Marlin, American Arms and H&R were ok and safe

"some of them good enough for the purpose intended, for a very short-range weapon of defence, among them the products of the Marlin Arms Co., the American Arms Co., and Harrington & Richardson"

Then dissed all the rest of the revolver manufacturers.

So "Were the Marlin, and Harrington and Richardson revolvers really that bad? Not in my opinion, nor the authors if I read him correctly.

They were safe, and functional and adequate for the intended purpose, a short range weapon of defense.

Were they are good as S&W, Colt, Merwin and Hulbert or Remington? I would have to agree with the author on that also, probably not.

Having said, that, I have two H&R Revolvers in my safe right now, both of which still function reliably, are in time, and are also still safe to shoot.

d

This sounds like late a 19th Century FUDD talking being the typical gun snob/elitist. Were the single action Colt's, S&W, and all types of Merwin's better revolvers? Yeah, they were the best revolvers at that time, but saying that the H&Rs, Ivers, H&A's, and other known brands at the time that weren't the previous three were veritable junk is a dopey thought.

In 1888 and prior, all the guns were made out of the same metal, so there was no difference in that quality, the difference would be the designs for the secondary brands were streamlined and made to hit a price point below that of S&W/Colt/Merwin. Now, there are ways you can make a good product cheaper than a more expensive similar one from your competitor, labor is big one, simpler designs are another if the parts and assembly of the guns can be faster and easier it all adds up to a cost reduction.

One thing that Colt, Smith, and Merwin did have that the others didn't were large frame, big bore frontier revolvers intended to be powerful and open carried, not tiny .32 pocket guns for the saloon or the walk home after the night shift.

Given the time where all the iron used was the same and black powder was the only ammunition that could be used, I don't see how apples to apples the HR's and Ivers (I've never considered the H&A's to be quality, even in black powder days) can't be considered equal in durability. Were they as smooth or as tight as S&W or Colt of the times? Nope, but they worked and they lasted because those H&R's and Ivers are still found to this day.

Kleanbore said:

I encountered enough of them chambered for .32 S&W that had been owned by non shooters, but that were badly worn mechanically, to have little regard for them.

Click to expand...

What were the brands of these .32's you've encountered? Were they black powder or smokeless rated? Were they dry fired often?

The issue is given the age of these guns it's unknown exactly what was being done with them or shot with. My belief is a lot of the black powder .32's got stuffed with smokeless at some point and it significantly reduced the life of them. The best way to judge these guns is to buy them in as like new condition as possible and shoot them with the proper ammo.

My two H&R .32's are smokeless and lockup very well. The top break is surprisingly accurate, the Young America has an issue retaining the base pin during shooting, which I'm going to blame on the retaining latch spring being worn. I can't judge the entire gun on an 80+ year old flat spring being old.