Were Marlin and Harrington Richardson revolvers really that bad?

Status
Not open for further replies.
TTv2 said:
...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.
Click to expand...
Did he say that? No.

TTv2 said:
n 1888 and prior, all the guns were made out of the same metal,
Click to expand...
Not true.

TTv2 said:
...so there was no difference in that quality,
Click to expand...
Not true.

TTv2 said:
the difference would be the designs
Click to expand...
...which would drive several measures of quality.

And don't forget workmanship.

TTv2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Antiher thug tat S&W had was quality top-breaks in .32 and .38.

TTv2 said:
....not tiny .32 pocket guns for the saloon or the walk home after the night shift.
Click to expand...
That is not a very challenging duty cycle.

TTv2 said:
Were they as smooth or as tight as S&W or Colt of the times? Nope,
Click to expand...
That is an indication of quality.

TTv2 said:
I don't see how apples to apples the HR's and Ivers ... can't be considered equal in durability.
Click to expand...
Maybe thay were. The comparison was with MH and S&W


TTv2 said:
I've never considered the H&A's to be quality, even in black powder days
Click to expand...
So, you believe that only the H&A was inferior?

TTv2 said:
they worked and they lasted because those H&R's and Ivers are still found to this day.
Click to expand...
After how much usage?

TTv2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's what people did, and the literature of the day indicates that they were not up to the strains and stresses of heavy usage.

TTv2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Might that not indicate something?
 
"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."


I also have two. One goes bang every time. One goes bang about five times out of six. That's pretty good for 100+ year-old revolvers that were inexpensive to begin with and never received any maintenance.

Hmm... a thought just struck me.

Ironically, I also have two Smiths that are about the same age as the two H&R's, give or take a decade.

The Smiths both go bang every time. Their DA triggers are stiff, but smoother than the H&R.

The Smiths probably had better finish to begin with, but the H&R's have more of it left.

The H&R's are 32's, as is one of the Smiths. The Smith 32 is more accurate, due to the longer barrel and better sights. (The H&R rear sights are so tiny that a simple groove would have been better.)

The H&R's cost me about $80 apiece. The Smiths were $120-something and $140-something. I guess they all "held their value" about the same. :)

Harrington and Richardson top-break 32 caliber revolver

Harrington and Richardson top-break 32 caliber revolver


Smith and Wesson Hand Ejector in 32 S&W long

Smith and Wesson Hand Ejector in 32 S&W long

 
TTv2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am of two minds about Hopkins & Allen. I have never owned any of their early revolvers, because they were not interesting mechanically and they did not look well made.

On the other hand, I have owned several of their last type of top-break revolvers, the "Safety Police". They seem to me be at least the equal of anything H&R or Iver Johnson was making at the time. Their "Triple Action" safety mechanism was about as good as IJ's transfer bar safety, their "Hercules Solid Joint" scissors-type top latch was better than H&R or IJ's Smith & Wesson-style hinged latch, and their trigger mechanism locked the cylinder in place while it was at rest, which was something it took IJ and H&R a long time to adopt.

I am not really qualified to comment on their workmanship compared to IJ and H&R, but any difference is not visible to the untrained eye, at least.

Also, it is worth bearing in mind that H&A made the Merwin & Hulbert revolvers, of which so many people speak favorably. And they made perfectly acceptable Mauser rifles for the Belgian Army in the First World War (although they went broke doing it).

So I can't argue with TTv2 about H&A's earlier products. But I think by the time of the Safety Police revolvers, they may have caught up. That was 15 or 20 years after the date of the 1888 book sleepysquirrel posted pages from here, of course, so perhaps this whole comment misses his point. :uhoh:
 
Monac said:
I am of two minds about Hopkins & Allen. I have never owned any of their early revolvers, because they were not interesting mechanically and they did not look well made.

On the other hand, I have owned several of their last type of top-break revolvers, the "Safety Police". They seem to me be at least the equal of anything H&R or Iver Johnson was making at the time. Their "Triple Action" safety mechanism was about as good as IJ's transfer bar safety, their "Hercules Solid Joint" scissors-type top latch was better than H&R or IJ's Smith & Wesson-style hinged latch, and their trigger mechanism locked the cylinder in place while it was at rest, which was something it took IJ and H&R a long time to adopt.

I am not really qualified to comment on their workmanship compared to IJ and H&R, but any difference is not visible to the untrained eye, at least.

Also, it is worth bearing in mind that H&A made the Merwin & Hulbert revolvers, of which so many people speak favorably. And they made perfectly acceptable Mauser rifles for the Belgian Army in the First World War (although they went broke doing it).

So I can't argue with TTv2 about H&A's earlier products. But I think by the time of the Safety Police revolvers, they may have caught up. That was 15 or 20 years after the date of the 1888 book sleepysquirrel posted pages from here, of course, so perhaps this whole comment misses his point. :uhoh:
Click to expand...
The Hopkins & Allen's were brought up recently and even the smokeless advertised models lasted less than 1000 rounds during testing by the factory.

While H&A made Merwin Hulbert revolvers, that doesn't mean the budget line of revolvers is some beacon of quality, think of Merwin as a vintage Corvette and the Hopkin's as a Chevette and you'll understand that while the same company can make both a high end sports car and a cheap, disposable sub-compact that doesn't mean the cheap car is well made.
 
Monac said:
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.
Click to expand...
See my impression was Iver Johnson didn't become big until Johnson & Bye patented the transfer-bar safety, and their "hammer the hammer" campaign. Back in the mid 1880's, Iver Johnson was still making spur trigger suicide specials, and their best revolvers were the double-action british bulldogs.
So it's understandable if they weren't a big name in the mid 1880's. But I would have thought Gould would at least mention Forehand & Wadsworth and Hopkins & Allen, who were arguably bigger than H&R in the 1870's-1880's

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...
Yep, they made brass-framed S&W tip-up up knockoffs.

6169878_0.jpg

They also made a top-break S&W knockoff in 1887, but those are much rarer
00758_r.jpg
http://www.nramuseum.org/guns/the-g...arms-industry/marlin-model-1887-revolver.aspx



webrx said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are very right! Seems like I mis-read what Gould was saying about Marlin and H&R revolvers. That they were "good enough" for short-range self defense, and better than the endless number of other manufacturers. In the 1880's, this would probably encompass all the spur-trigger suicide specials, a large number of them probably made by Hopkins & Allen.


Monac said:
I am of two minds about Hopkins & Allen. I have never owned any of their early revolvers, because they were not interesting mechanically and they did not look well made.

Also, it is worth bearing in mind that H&A made the Merwin & Hulbert revolvers, of which so many people speak favorably. And they made perfectly acceptable Mauser rifles for the Belgian Army in the First World War (although they went broke doing it).

So I can't argue with TTv2 about H&A's earlier products. But I think by the time of the Safety Police revolvers, they may have caught up. That was 15 or 20 years after the date of the 1888 book sleepysquirrel posted pages from here, of course, so perhaps this whole comment misses his point. :uhoh:
Click to expand...
I've heard that H&A had 2 "tier's" of gun-making. They were one of the most prolific manufacturers of suicide special revolvers (see this list here: http://gun-data.com/suicide_specials.htm), many of which they did not put their company name on. And then they had their Hopkins & Allen XL series guns, which had the newer patents (such as resting the hamer between chambers), and were generally better made. Ultimately it seems like their reputation for making suicide specials tanked the company. It's like if Hi-Point started making high quality 1911's, even if it was better made than a Colt, most people probably never buy them because of the name alone.

I think their Merwin & Hulberts were able to get by without being associated with the H&A name.
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that Smith & Wesson had the only drop forge suitable for forging frames in that era in the Connecticut River Valley and, in addition to Smith & Wesson, all other makers in that vicinity would have had to use the same forge. I assume Smith & Wesson contracted it out for a fee. They produced frames in batches and they would not have used it continuously.

I have a Marlin Model 1887 revolver in as new condition in its original box and the quality is comparable to the Safety Hammerless (Lemon Squeezer) revolver produced by Smith & Wesson.
 
The other stuff is more interesting I think.

I know most everyone loves old guns, but to ONLY pay attention to just the big name brands like Colt, Remington and Smith & Wesson seems a little closed minded, I love learning about 'the little guys gun company's', see their products weve never heard about or seen before.

https://www.gunandgame.com/threads/aint-mine-but-it-sure-is-strange.133874/page-2

Aaron Vaughan
Forehand & Wadsworth (1890-1898)
James Reid rimfire revolver
Lucius W. Pond front loading rimfire cartridge revolver
Abram J. Gibson S.A. Belt Revolver
Porter Revolving Turret revolver.
Starr
Remington-Rider
Owen Jones Two Barrel .22/.32 Revolver
Fordyce Beals & Remington
Smith and Percival Repeating Pistol
Marston three-barrel derringer
James Warner Firearms (revolving & breech loading)
Metropolitans
ADAMS REVOLVING ARMS CO. N.Y.
Allen & Wheelock
Massachusetts Arms Co
Joslyn Firearms Company, Stonington, Connecticut
Deringer Rifle and Pistol Works of Philadelphia around 1875.​
 
Last edited:
Osgood Duplex: https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/93226629_rare-osgood-duplex-over-under-revolver ?

That was more like a LeMat revolver with a singleshot fixed centerline barrel.

Owen Jones revolver utilize two different cylinders, one to fire .22 rimfire in the upper barrel and .32 rimfire fired from the bottom barrel.
Provision to store the unused cylinger inside the hollowed out handgrip.
http://www.american-firearms.com/american-firearms/Manufacturers/START.html
​
ACME Manufactured by Hopkins & Allen but sold by Merwin & Hulbert

ACME Arms
Trade name used by J. Stevens Arms Co. and Cornwall Hardware Co.
.22 short r.f., 7 shoot single action revolver, spur trigger, solid frame
.32 short r.f., 5 shot single action revolver, spur trigger, solid frame
12 gauge shotgun, damascus double barrel. somes or all? were made from belgium steel.

ACME Hammerless Manufactured by Hopkins & Allen for Merwin, Hulbert & co.
.22 r.f. caliber possible but not certain. If anybody has one please contact me

.32 S&W, 5 shot double action revolver, hammerless, 2 1/2" octagonal barrel

.38 S&W, 5 shot couble action revolver, hammerless, 3" octagonal barrel

Both models solid frame, with triggerguard and quare-butt grips, were made from 1893 to 1898

The Meriden Firearms Company was formed when Sears Roebuck purchased the Andrew Fryberg & Sons firearms manufacturing plant in 1903 and moved the plant and machinery to Meriden, Connecticut, circa 1904. The company started manufacturing firearms circa early 1905. Around 1906 Sears acquired a Savage-held patent for the Model 15 slide-action .22 rifle that was not introduced until 1913. During 1918 Sears announced that the Meriden Firearms Company would discontinue the manufacture of sporting firearms.

In the early 1900's, Winchester stopped selling firearms to Sears and Roebuck's discount mail order house because they considered Sears discounting of prices to be demoralizing all firearms prices and causing general discontent in the trade. Most firearm manufacturing companies at the time agreed with Winchester, but only Winchester took any type of action. In November of 1904, Winchester announced that it would no longer sell to the Sears and Roebuck Company and they cancelled all unfilled orders. The Meriden Fire Arms Company was started by Sears and Roebuck's because of the Winchester's refusal to sell firearms to them. The Meriden Model 10 was first listed in the Sears and Roebuck Spring 1910 catalog priced at $2.19. The Model 10 was made on a rolling block action with a color case hardened frame of malleable iron, a 22" barrel, and a walnut forearm and butt stock. The Meriden Model 10 was discontinued in 1917.


​
 
Last edited:
The Rollin White Patent
The introduction of metallic cartridges made the “cap and ball” system obsolete. Because the round’s primer is integrated into the cartridge, no percussion caps are required to fire the gun. For a metallic cartridge to be inserted into a revolving cylinder, the cylinder needs to be bored fully through so the entire chamber can be in alignment with firing pin and barrel. In 1855, a gunsmith named Rollin White was granted a patent for a revolver design which included this fully-bored cylinder. A year later White signed an exclusivity contract with Smith & Wesson.

In 1869, White attempted to extend his patent through legal means, but Ulysses S. Grant, acting under the authority of martial law, denied his request on the grounds that White’s patent was “an inconvenience and embarrassment” to Union forces for the “inability of manufacturers to use this patent.” The Rollin White patent expired, and cartridge-based revolvers became the standard handgun of the American west.

http://shipwrecklibrary.com/deadlands/revolving-rifles/
 
The H&R revolver I had was a 929 DA w/a 6" barrel and it rubbed my knuckle the wrong way, so I sold it.
 
George C.Nonte wrote that he quickly found the H&R revolver he first used ca. 1944 was not up to sustained DA shooting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Driftwood Johnson
  • Locked
A Photo Essay about Merwin and Hulbert Revolvers
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
mravery
M
Hillbilly Hydrographics
  • Locked
Harrington and Richardson revolvers
Replies
17
Views
1K
indy1919a4
indy1919a4
Tallball
  • Locked
New to Me Harrington and Richardson Top-break Revolver
Replies
13
Views
2K
FROGO207
FROGO207
Driftwood Johnson
  • Locked
How Old is your Oldest Revolver?
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
163
Views
11K
Texas10mm
Texas10mm
S
  • Locked
The single-action safety-notch and the "Cowboy Load" myth
2 3 4
Replies
92
Views
8K
CraigC
CraigC
Back
Top