A picture is worth a thousand words. Lets compare the tolerances of the top frame joint on the MH on the left, to the sideplate on the very cookie cutter, newer, mass produced S&W 10-8 on the right.
That doesn't fit my definition of "closely fitted". The picture linked to in post #36 shows the same exact gun as mine, in nearly pristine shape, with the same generous amount of gap that shows that mine is not "shot loose".
It is a neat design but I have the feeling that many have overrated the complexity and fitment of these guns for whatever reason.
Nothing in that picture leads me to believe that if a capable company that didn't have to scrabble for funding wanted to make a MH revolver, it wouldn't happen quickly and without much fuss. Using the past failures of past attempts as evidence that the production of these revolvers would be somehow harder than other firearm designs of the period or even of today's designs is misleading, as the failed company couldn't even get a working prototype figured out for lack of funding.
It just happened that the only company that has tried was in over its head from the getgo, and people use evidence of its failures as evidence against the gun itself, when all it shows is the company was ill equipped financially for the endeavor from the start.
IF I remember right, they didn't even get to the point of "hand fitting". They didn't get past the point of CAD to make a prototype.
They were going to make the older style revolvers without the top strap, which would have eliminated the top swiveling frame joint. If hand fitting those joints were an issue, they were eliminating a good portion of that hand fitting and still couldn't get it done.
Remember, the later pocket revolvers with the top strap and top strap/frame joint were produced at the LAST stages of MH's life, when they were focusing on trying to pull themselves out of bankruptcy. Why would MH significantly increase the work involved in fitting that second joint during that part of the company's life if there was such work involved with fitting those parts?
If they couldn't make a working prototype of a 100+ year old design that was mass produced, Its not because of the design itself. They underestimated the capitol involved with replicating a historical firearm in general. It could have been a number of different designs, Unless it was something simple like a brass cannon, they would have still failed for lack of capitol during the development stage. They just didn't have the capitol to develop an accurate replica from scratch.
It was a startup company, plenty of those fail for no other reasons than poor management or lack of funds. It wasn't necessarily too hard to make them, but it wasn't easy enough for a company barely afloat, where any little setback was a major deal.
Lack of funding = lack of progress
Who knows how easily they would have been made once they were tooled up.
But production is different that development, and a gun that's hard to develop isn't necessarily hard to produce. No doubt its hard to develop a gun for production using nothing but worn historical examples. That doesn't mean that making 10,000 more after the first few wouldn't be if not easy, then feasible.....if the demand is there.
There just isn't the demand to tool up.
Colt did it with the Python. All hand fitted... They sure didn't quit making Pythons because they were too hard to make, after almost 50 years of making them. Labor became too expensive or too hard to find, the market didn't support them, etc....but not because they were too hard to make.