Durability of old double action revolvers and why are there little if any reporductio

Matter of usage, I have not seen anything to say the Russians ever bought any double actions. The first large frame double action was in .44 Russian caliber, is all.

They didn't make any .44 Safety Hammerless, either, or no more than prototypes.

There is no market for pre-Hand Ejector double actions. The Cowboy shooters can't use them and not enough others care enough to pay the price.

No.
A senior collector once told me that a S&W .32 or .38 Double Action was almost as fragile as a Colt Lightning. A friend has one in pieces in a box. The self-sprung cylinder stop is broken. He can't get a replacement because that is a part that breaks a lot, so the spare inventory is long gone and the parts guns at Numrich have the same breakage.
The big .44 Double Action is durable because it is bigger, kind of like a Colt DA Frontier.

The Safety Hammerless is sturdier, but it is not something you are going to shoot a lot and wear out, either.

First of all, these early double-action revolvers had complicated actions that were filled with small parts and springs. Add to that they had to be assembled by experienced final assemblers who had a lot of experience. If someone came out with reproductions they'd have to do a lot of internal redesigning, because with today's labor costs very few people could (or would) buy the finished product.

The original guns make interesting collectables, but aren't especially good shooters, especially in the D.A. mode.

Another reason is that, with the exception of some large caliber models, there are plenty of pre-HE DA revolvers. S&W made thousands of them, IJ and H&R made millions. Even M&H double actions are fairly common. None of those is expensive, in fact some are downright cheap. Even the Civil War era Starr DA (not really a DA; it is a trigger cocker) and Cooper are not beyond the means of most collectors.

I just don't see someone paying thousands of dollars for a repro of a gun when he can buy the original (though probably in lesser condition) for the same price or less.

Jim

I cannot imagine how there is enough of a market to re-produce any of the old DA revolvers - even if upgraded with modern materials to function reliably for the same amount of rounds that today's shooters would expect.

The designs just do not lend themselves well enough to modern manufacturing methods. Too much hand fitting was required and I doubt a proper engineering study would find much leeway in the dimensions to beef anything up as well as standardize the parts well enough to reduce the hand fitting steps.

I think one of the main reasons why the SAA was a good candidate for this kind of materials and process modernization was due to the relatively small number of parts.

Even if you did take the leap and put down the money for the engineering on this project - which gun would you choose? There really wasn't any one gun nearing the popularity of the SAA - so which would be good enough to gamble this effort on the response in today's gun market? There may be a few SASS-type guns that could catch on but it seems too big a risk - IMHO.

Personally, I would love to have a modern Colt Thunderer and I would pay good money - $1,000 to $1,200 to put numbers to that - to own one. But I just don't see that it will ever come to pass.

If you have $1200 and want a Colt Lightning or Thunderer, I suggest a trip to your local gun show. Of course it won't be modern, but there are a good many out there at reasonable prices. I saw one for sale last week; I think it is $600, and in pretty good shape.

The problem with modern breaktops is that the design is essentially deficient. No matter how the latch is designed, it HAS to have a small gap in order to work. And even the smallest gap will peen in firing. Good hardened material can slow that down, but not prevent it, even if the cartridge is weak, and few today would accept a new revolver chambered for the weak cartridges of the old days. Today, folks scorn even .38 Special, let alone .32 S&W or .38 S&W.

Then there is the extractor problem. The longer the cartridge, the harder it is to design an automatic ejection system. A hook system won't work with any cartridge much over .38 S&W length. A rack and pinion system would probably work, but the barrel would have to be at least 4".

I think that a powerful, modern top break revolver is just going to remain on the wish lists.

Jim

I saw a Colt Thunderer in reasonably good condition at a local gun store for about $400 - "AS IS". The "AS IS" made me believe it needed some work to make it shoot. I have fabricated gun and car parts from scratch in the past and believe that I could get that gun running with some work.

However, the next problem is ammo. The Thunderer shoots a 41 Colt which is a hipped round - the front part of the bullet is the same outer diameter as the case while the rear part of the bullet (the part inside the case) is smaller to fit in the case. Not only would I have to source the obsolete brass but I would have to find/make/order a special mold for the bullets.

If I did have a Thunderer (or any gun for that matter) I would want it as a shooter. But the challenges in getting one to that level with the labor of fabricating the ammo to shoot is just a bit more than I am willing to sign up for before I am ready to retire and have extra time on my hands.

Colt's Model 1877 "Thunderer" was made up until 1908, but Colt made a point of putting an end label on the box warning that it should be used with black powder ammunition only, during later years. Keep this in mind if you are thinking of using one as a shooter - that in any context isn't wise.

Makers of "cowboy" ammo have been making .41 Colt; it was the fifth most popular caliber in the SAA. I got some from Ultramax a while back and fired it in a Model 1877 (Thunderer) and a Model 1896 with no problems, but I don't see it on their current web site.

Jim

Oh yeah, if I did end up getting an old Thunderer running I definitely would only be putting black powder through it.

Makers of "cowboy" ammo have been making .41 Colt; it was the fifth most popular caliber in the SAA.

Click to expand...

Now that is something I did not know. I wonder if they went to the trouble of casting hipped bullets or just made them in the newer style - same diameter from base to tip with a conical base?

For me the Thunderer is one of those "Holy Grail" guns - something I saw in a museum as a youth and made a promise to myself that if it ever became possible I would have one. Changes in fortune and history have brought most of the guns from my list to me (I would never have guessed that I would one day buy a CZ52 for what is essentially pocket change). I might just have to look into this a bit more.

Hint: The cylinder's chambers have very thin walls, and they were made from low-carbon steel rods that often had seams in them. Of course they were not heat treated. More often then not, current day .41 Colt black powder ammunition is used in 19th centry Colt Single Actions.

Most gunsmiths that have much experience working on them refuse to do it anymore. I suspect that you are determined to tinker, but at least you’ve been warned.

I suggest that before you jump, go to www.gunpartscorp.com

I don’t know that you’ll find much in usable parts, but I believe they have an exploded view drawing. Do study it.

Yup. The Thunderer makes the old SAA look nearly robust in comparison. It is almost dainty when compared to a modern, S&W N-frame.

I am a degreed mechanical engineer who has been making things out of steel since high school - about 40 years. There is very little on the scale of a Thunderer's internal parts that I couldn't make with the tools I have. But I can see how a gunsmith would not find it worth his time if he would have to charge somebody for the work.

Thank you for the link to the exploded view. That makes it easy to estimate what parts are most likely to fail and need to be replicated.

The parts that fail on the old guns are usually flat springs, often in wild shapes, and those are not easy to make, degree or no degree.

Worse, the parts interact with each other in a bewildering way. For example, I worked on one that had a worn cocking notch in the hammer that someone recut. Now on a SAA, that would be no problem. But on the 1877, the fact that the sear sat a bit deeper in the hammer threw off the whole timing of the gun. I finally had to have a real artist with a TIG welder (not me) put a spot of weld on the hammer and then I was able to recut the notch, but I warned the customer that it might well not hold and that it probably would not be possible to repair it again. (New hammers are not available, and if you can make one of those, you have my deepest admiration and respect.)

Jim