Reproduction revolvers

[94045]

Taylor's & Company New Model No 3 Frontier in .45 Colt

It might not have an octagonal barrel but I think it works well with your 1895.

Besides everyone has a Colt.

Besides it has a better rear sight and a Schofield type latch.

 

[Old Stumpy]

Ok, contrary to popular "misconception" / "perpetuated misinformation", the Colt pattern open top design ( executed correctly) is superior in strength to the Remington pattern. I've explained how/why many times before so I'll skip it here.

Can you provide any independent documented evidence, other than your beliefs, to back up your claim?

 

[Hokkmike]

I picked up a used book on Six Shooters and the stories behind the men, good and bad, who used them are fascinating. If you like history, Western lore, or just "old time" looks the reproductions are great. The difference is old time Colts vs. modern Ubertis is significant price wise.

 

[Hokkmike]

Find a gun you like & then contact the manufacturer.
Personally, I'd feel a whole lot better with words from the source rather than a gun forum.

I'm in NO WAY dissing this community.
The people here are top notch!

But info from the maker is lawyer proof
Besides you'll find the gun community to offer
the best customer service you've ever seen.

Mostly agree but nothing like real consumer experience. Besides, manufacturers are partial to the extreme. Maybe consult both sources. And anyway, that is why these forums exist, for our education, entertainment, and edification....

 

[94045]

Can you provide any independent documented evidence, other than your beliefs, to back up your claim?

Even more worrisome I worry about the Engineers at Colt that copied an inferior system apparently not knowing they were taking a backwards step. If Revolvers without a top strap are stronger why are we still using the inferior designs today?

Surely someone must realize the superiority and offer a .500 Linebaugh Open Top.

 

[Old Stumpy]

Even more worrisome I worry about the Engineers at Colt that copied an inferior system apparently not knowing they were taking a backwards step. If Revolvers without a top strap are stronger why are we still using the inferior designs today?

I'm sawing off the top straps on all my revolvers. Don't need them.

 

[skeeterfogger]

Even more worrisome I worry about the Engineers at Colt that copied an inferior system apparently not knowing they were taking a backwards step. If Revolvers without a top strap are stronger why are we still using the inferior designs today?

Surely someone must realize the superiority and offer a .500 Linebaugh Open Top.

I've seen open tops especially brass frame that stretched terribly and some steel frame. After talking to owners about it it was clear they were macho shooters that used way too much powder than scientifically sufficient. In my early years I had an 1858 in brass. After shooting only 20gns under a .454 ball it was showing signs. That was 45+ years ago and lots of bp gun vendors that went belly up quick back then. I also don't think the brass quality was near as good as it is now. Still I don't like brass in larger than 36cal or 44cal that shoots more tha 18gns, like a colt shorty. Although I did trade out the brass on mine with a steel from a 36 I have. Just don't like brass on 44cal.
Would love to see a 5 shot 50cal in full frame come out. Have seen some 50cal sa revolvers converted to bp by making bp cylinder, hammer and replacing case extractor with ram rod. But between the original purchase of the pistol and rework it ran around 2200. Could just shoot bp cowboy loads in it way cheaper. Still a 5/50 would be neat.

 

[Old Stumpy]

This is the cylinder arbor for a Pietta Colt 1851 Navy and 1860 Army
Notice that small threaded end? That's what screws into the recoil shield to hold the revolver together.
When you fire the revolver, all of the chamber pressure is transferred through the wedge to the arbor wedge slot, and then to that small threaded section.
A very weak system to be sure.

 

[skeeterfogger]

View attachment 888004
This is the cylinder arbor for a Pietta Colt 1851 Navy and 1860 Army
Notice that small threaded end? That's what screws into the recoil shield to hold the revolver together.
When you fire the revolver, all of the chamber pressure is transferred through the wedge to the arbor wedge slot, and then to that small threaded section.
A very weak system to be sure.

All the more reason I prefer 36cal and regardless of caliber keeping the charge at the low to just under mid volume.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Taylor's & Company New Model No 3 Frontier in .45 Colt

It might not have an octagonal barrel but I think it works well with your 1895.

Besides everyone has a Colt.

Besides it has a better rear sight and a Schofield type latch.

Howdy

That is incorrect.

The New Model Number Three does not have the Schofield style latch. Both the original and the reproduction New Model Number Threes had the same type of latch as every other large frame Top Break Smith and Wesson revolver.

This is a S&W New Model #3. The latch is the dark colored part near the hammer.






A close up of the latch and the cut in the hammer that prevents the latch from being opened unless the hammer is set at half cock.






Here is the latch with the barrel partially opened. The latch is secured when it is lowered over the two posts in the frame.






This is a Schofield. Notice the serpentine shape of the barrel latch. This is the only S&W Top Break that had the latch mounted on the frame. The latch pivoted back, rotating on the screw, to free the barrel to rotate down. That was the whole point of Schofield's patent on his latch. S&W had to pay a royalty to Schofield for every revolver they made because of Schofield's patent. Daniel Wesson directed his engineers to come up with an alternative style latch that would circumvent Schofield's patent. By the time production of the Schofield model ceased in 1878, they had not done so.






Here is a view of how the Schofield latch worked. When it was pivoted back, the barrel was free to rotate down. Notice the rear sight is integral with the latch.






What you are probably thinking of is that the Taylor's version of the New Model Number Three has a target sight on it. This is the target sight on an antique 44 Double Acton Top Break. The sight is adjustable for windage only by loosening the two small screws and pushing the blade to the left or right. There is no adjustment for elevation. This is the type of rear sight that comes on the Taylors version of the New Model Number Three. The revolver is also known as the Beretta Laramie.

 

[45 Dragoon]

View attachment 888004
This is the cylinder arbor for a Pietta Colt 1851 Navy and 1860 Army
Notice that small threaded end? That's what screws into the recoil shield to hold the revolver together.
When you fire the revolver, all of the chamber pressure is transferred through the wedge to the arbor wedge slot, and then to that small threaded section.
A very weak system to be sure.

Thanks Old Stumpy for posting the pic of the arbor! That "small threaded end" is right at 5/16" (course thread) and has a tensile strength of roughly 4,000 lbs (for low carbon mild steel). I doubt you'll send anything down the barrel that will push over 4,000 lbs. That said, the acting frame for the open top platform is basically half (more material in half the space = more strength) the perimeter of the top strap (outside perimeter with less material = less support) frame of the Remington. It is also twice the width of the Rem. frame where the barrel lug meets (whereas the REM.is almost nonexistent). The top strap of the Remington is fairly thin with a sight groove down the middle (which diminishe!s the overall strength of the strap). So, the top strap compared to the arbor is a loss for the Remington. The "meat" of either revolver definitely goes to the open top platform.
The main difference in the open top revolvers of today vs the originals is the arbor situation. That particularly is key as far as the design and as I said in my post (pg.1) "done correctly" makes a lot of difference. The transfer of energy throughout the revolver (when fired ) demands the coupling of the two assemblies which is why the wedge is to be under tension when installed. The wedge is a connection, not a referee (between two opposing contestants).
As far as" frame stretching ", I could never figure that one out. The barrel lug /frame would be in a compression situation so . . . no stretching there . . . The pulling of the arbor threads in a brass or even a steel frame I can understand (still, not a stretching situation . . . more a "stripping" situation). Why would that happen? Probably a short arbor with a wedge that worked loose or a loose arbor to begin with or a combination of both? If we're going to be honest and compare apples to apples, then they both need to be a "correct" example. The open top platform is definitely more complicated to produce correctly whereas the top strap design with a screw in barrel is much easier . . . which is why we still have that design today. The only way to make them "stronger" is to increase the size of the frame.

The only revolver I've ever bent loading is a Remington. The only revolver I've ever sheared a loading lever screw while loading was an open top! That one lesson right there was all I ever needed to know as to which platform had the strength.

Mike


As a side note, the antiquated Walker (of open top design) held the record as the most powerful (production) revolver for almost 100 yrs! During that time top strap revolvers (including smokless powder in use for almost 40 yrs.) came and went . . . a rather telling tale of an "introductory" revolver . . . of open top design . . .

 

[94045]

Howdy

That is incorrect.

The New Model Number Three does not have the Schofield style latch. Both the original and the reproduction New Model Number Threes had the same type of latch as every other large frame Top Break Smith and Wesson revolver.

This is a S&W New Model #3. The latch is the dark colored part near the hammer.

View attachment 888059




A close up of the latch and the cut in the hammer that prevents the latch from being opened unless the hammer is set at half cock.

View attachment 888060




Here is the latch with the barrel partially opened. The latch is secured when it is lowered over the two posts in the frame.

View attachment 888061




This is a Schofield. Notice the serpentine shape of the barrel latch. This is the only S&W Top Break that had the latch mounted on the frame. The latch pivoted back, rotating on the screw, to free the barrel to rotate down. That was the whole point of Schofield's patent on his latch. S&W had to pay a royalty to Schofield for every revolver they made because of Schofield's patent. Daniel Wesson directed his engineers to come up with an alternative style latch that would circumvent Schofield's patent. By the time production of the Schofield model ceased in 1878, they had not done so.

View attachment 888062




Here is a view of how the Schofield latch worked. When it was pivoted back, the barrel was free to rotate down. Notice the rear sight is integral with the latch.

View attachment 888063




What you are probably thinking of is that the Taylor's version of the New Model Number Three has a target sight on it. This is the target sight on an antique 44 Double Acton Top Break. The sight is adjustable for windage only by loosening the two small screws and pushing the blade to the left or right. There is no adjustment for elevation. This is the type of rear sight that comes on the Taylors version of the New Model Number Three. The revolver is also known as the Beretta Laramie.

View attachment 888064

Should have been non-Schofield.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Even more worrisome I worry about the Engineers at Colt that copied an inferior system apparently not knowing they were taking a backwards step. If Revolvers without a top strap are stronger why are we still using the inferior designs today?

Surely someone must realize the superiority and offer a .500 Linebaugh Open Top.

94045, removing the "school yard" attitude from the question, I intend to do just that! Not in a .50 cal offering, but in a "modern" .45C offering, with a "wedge less" setup that will allow the use of "Ruger only" loads (not to mention the ability to change barrel lengths easily . . . sort of a 19th century Dan Wesson setup). Something a little different for the handgun hunter to take to the woods with.
For those who actually wonder what a .50cal open top would entail, a much larger cylinder, for the most part! The ability to use a smaller diameter base pin allowed a smaller package for a large bore revolver. The smaller pin along with bored through cylinders brought forth the need for a two fingered hand which allowed the ratchet teeth to be located between the chambers instead of in-line with the chambers.

Mike

 

[94045]

94045, removing the "school yard" attitude from the question, I intend to do just that! Not in a .50 cal offering, but in a "modern" .45C offering, with a "wedge less" setup that will allow the use of "Ruger only" loads (not to mention the ability to change barrel lengths easily . . . sort of an 19th century Dan Wesson setup). Something a little different for the handgun hunter to take to the woods with.
For those who actually wonder what a .50cal open top would entail, a much larger cylinder, for the most part! The ability to use a smaller diameter base pin allowed a smaller package for a large bore revolver. The smaller pin along with bored through cylinders brought forth the need for a two fingered hand which allowed the ratchet teeth to be located between the chambers instead of in-line with the chambers.

Mike

The point I was trying to make "tongue-in-cheek" was if the top strap design didn't offer advantages I have to believe it would have been abandoned long ago.

 

[45 Dragoon]

I've seen open tops especially brass frame that stretched terribly and some steel frame. After talking to owners about it it was clear they were macho shooters that used way too much powder than scientifically sufficient. In my early years I had an 1858 in brass. After shooting only 20gns under a .454 ball it was showing signs. That was 45+ years ago and lots of bp gun vendors that went belly up quick back then. I also don't think the brass quality was near as good as it is now. Still I don't like brass in larger than 36cal or 44cal that shoots more tha 18gns, like a colt shorty. Although I did trade out the brass on mine with a steel from a 36 I have. Just don't like brass on 44cal.
Would love to see a 5 shot 50cal in full frame come out. Have seen some 50cal sa revolvers converted to bp by making bp cylinder, hammer and replacing case extractor with ram rod. But between the original purchase of the pistol and rework it ran around 2200. Could just shoot bp cowboy loads in it way cheaper. Still a 5/50 would be neat.

Maybe "macho shooters" with a "less than adequate" revolver? Were they shooting "out of the box" revolvers? I've set up many Walkers for handgun hunting that shoot full house loads of Triple 7 with heavy conical bullets . . . all day everyday. They don't suffer from "frame stretching" , wedge eating, arbor breaking, barrel deforming . . . It just needs to be (as any modern S.A. ) set up for the task it is intended to do.

Mike

 

[94045]

Maybe "macho shooters" with a "less than adequate" revolver? Were they shooting "out of the box" revolvers? I've set up many Walkers for handgun hunting that shoot full house loads of Triple 7 with heavy conical bullets . . . all day everyday. They don't suffer from "frame stretching" , wedge eating, arbor breaking, barrel deforming . . . It just needs to be (as any modern S.A. ) set up for the task it is intended to do.

Mike

Yes, but my question is would the Walker have to be the size of a BFR to handle that load if it was a different design?

 

[45 Dragoon]

The point I was trying to make "tongue-in-cheek" was if the top strap design didn't offer advantages I have to believe it would have been abandoned long ago.

Likewise, I was trying to convey the need for size reduction as well as the economics of a screw-in barrel.

Mike

 

[45 Dragoon]

All the more reason I prefer 36cal and regardless of caliber keeping the charge at the low to just under mid volume.

If I was that scared, I'd just give up cap guns period!! You're a brave sole!!

Mike

 

[45 Dragoon]

Yes, but my question is would the Walker have to be the size of a BFR to handle that load if it was a different design?

I'm sorry, I don't really understand your question. The Walker is big enough as is and I clearly stated that "I've set up many Walkers (not changed the size of anything) for handgun hunting that shoot full house loads of Triple 7 with heavy conical bullets . . . " It's already the bigger design so, no (?) .

Funny you mention the BFR! I picked one up this past weekend (just to check it out . . . used of course) and after cycling it many times, it's a little disappointing . . . it had late bolt pickup and I'm assuming it was not shot much (454 Casull's usually aren't fired much!) so, even $1100.00 + revolvers need a little attention !!

Mike

 

[45 Dragoon]

In fact, in the "hard lead vs soft lead" thread in the blackpowder section, my experience is reported by another member LaneP!! (I knew I'd just posted about this somewhere!!)

Mike

 

[skeeterfogger]

If I was that scared, I'd just give up cap guns period!! You're a brave sole!!

Mike

Save trolling for twitter.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Save trolling for twitter.

Likewise.

Mike

 

[Old Stumpy]

That "small threaded end" is right at 5/16" (course thread) and has a tensile strength of roughly 4,000 lbs (for low carbon mild steel).

It isn't just the tensile strength of the threads of course. It's the tiny area of the recoil shield that the threads of the arbor is pulling against when the revolver is fired. Such a small area to withstand all of that chamber pressure is far less than with top strap revolvers.

According to the Lyman BP Handbook Edition #2:
- a .44 caliber revolver using a 200 grain conical bullet with 30 grains of GOEX FFFg produces 8100 PSI.
- the same revolver using a .451" round ball with the same charge produces 6500 PSI.
That's significantly more than the 4000 PSI maximum pressure that that you believed would occur in a cap & ball revolver.

Also, you appear to have forgotten that in your post #21 you stated that open top revolvers were better for conversion cylinder smokeless powder shooting because (in your opinion) they were stronger than solid frame revolvers.
According to SAAMI standards the maximum standard working pressure for mild factory .45 Colt loads is 14,000 PSI. Even if most of them actually only run around 12,000 PSI, that's 3 times greater than the 4000 PSI maximum that you believed that a C&B revolver would experience.

You believe that 12,000 pounds of pressure yanking at a 3/8" length of 5/16" diameter threaded rod is stronger than a solid frame? I hardly think so.

And you still haven't provided any of the documented evidence (other than your own opinions) to substantiate your claim.

Why would every single manufacturer of revolvers have abandoned the open top design if the top strap design was not stronger?

Would any manufacturer have been able to successfully produce powerful smokeless powder revolvers otherwise?

 

[45 Dragoon]

It isn't just the tensile strength of the threads of course. It's the tiny area of the recoil shield that the threads of the arbor is pulling against when the revolver is fired. Such a small area to withstand all of that chamber pressure is far less than with top strap revolvers.

According to the Lyman BP Handbook Edition #2:
- a .44 caliber revolver using a 200 grain conical bullet with 30 grains of GOEX FFFg produces 8100 PSI.
- the same revolver using a .451" round ball with the same charge produces 6500 PSI.
That's significantly more than the 4000 PSI maximum pressure that that you believed would occur in a cap & ball revolver.

Also, you appear to have forgotten that in your post #21 you stated that open top revolvers were better for conversion cylinder smokeless powder shooting because (in your opinion) they were stronger than solid frame revolvers.
According to SAAMI standards the maximum standard working pressure for mild factory .45 Colt loads is 14,000 PSI. Even if most of them actually only run around 12,000 PSI, that's 3 times greater than the 4000 PSI maximum that you believed that a C&B revolver would experience.

You believe that 12,000 pounds of pressure yanking at a 3/8" length of 5/16" diameter threaded rod is stronger than a solid frame? I hardly think so.

And you still haven't provided any of the documented evidence (other than your own opinions) to substantiate your claim.

Why would every single manufacturer of revolvers have abandoned the open top design if the top strap design was not stronger?

Would any manufacturer have been able to successfully produce powerful smokeless powder revolvers otherwise?

Wow!! Are we all over the place or what?!! Lol
Ok! I count 7 paragraphs so I'll just answer them in order. Here we go !!!

P1- Hey! You're right, it's screwed into the bigger/thicker (and fully (meaning all the way through)) recoil shield of the open top frame! It's anchored in an excellent foundation (torqued too!)!!

P2- I know !! Right?!! This makes you wonder how a Walker could stay together with twice the charge (which would be 60 grs.) of Triple 7 (even MORE power!!!) After all, a Walker's arbor isn't that much bigger than an Army/Navy arbor !! How's that work?!!!

P3- (They are! We're just rehashing the same ol stuff here . . .)

P4- You are free to "hardly think" anything you want!!

P5- I don't really feel the need to have to provide "documented evidence" for my position ( you didn't . . ). I've already told you about bending the Remington frame when loading but actually shearing a screw (takes a pretty fair amount of force to do that!) while loading an open top! If you understand the difference between those two events, it's pretty much self explanatory. (Besides, it's the Internet and you ain't my daddy . . . )

P6 - Ugh . . . cheaper?!!! I already explained the smaller package thing and the need for a 2 fingered hand , blah blah blah . . .

P7 - Of course!!! Here again, I've already mentioned about a Dragoon based revolver, wedge less, shooting .45C Ruger only loads . . . remember . . . ^^^^

Anyway, you seem to have a disconnect about the difference of the strength of a pressure vessel (cylinder) and the structural strength of the support for the vessel.

Here's one for ya to think about . . . my 5,000 lb car is held off the ground with 120 psi of air !!! (30 lbs psi in each tire!!) Holy mackerel!!!!

Mike

 

[Old Stumpy]

Wow!! Are we all over the place or what?!! Lol
Ok! I count 7 paragraphs so I'll just answer them in order. Here we go !!!

P1- Hey! You're right, it's screwed into the bigger/thicker (and fully (meaning all the way through)) recoil shield of the open top frame! It's anchored in an excellent foundation (torqued too!)!!

P2- I know !! Right?!! This makes you wonder how a Walker could stay together with twice the charge (which would be 60 grs.) of Triple 7 (even MORE power!!!) After all, a Walker's arbor isn't that much bigger than an Army/Navy arbor !! How's that work?!!!

P3- (They are! We're just rehashing the same ol stuff here . . .)

P4- You are free to "hardly think" anything you want!!

P5- I don't really feel the need to have to provide "documented evidence" for my position ( you didn't . . ). I've already told you about bending the Remington frame when loading but actually shearing a screw (takes a pretty fair amount of force to do that!) while loading an open top! If you understand the difference between those two events, it's pretty much self explanatory. (Besides, it's the Internet and you ain't my daddy . . . )

P6 - Ugh . . . cheaper?!!! I already explained the smaller package thing and the need for a 2 fingered hand , blah blah blah . . .

P7 - Of course!!! Here again, I've already mentioned about a Dragoon based revolver, wedge less, shooting .45C Ruger only loads . . . remember . . . ^^^^

Anyway, you seem to have a disconnect about the difference of the strength of a pressure vessel (cylinder) and the structural strength of the support for the vessel.

Here's one for ya to think about . . . my 5,000 lb car is held off the ground with 120 psi of air !!! (30 lbs psi in each tire!!) Holy mackerel!!!!

Mike

Seems like just ranting and raving here. I have no idea what you are even on about for the most part.

Your one claim that 60 grains of Triple 7 not blowing up a Walker repro is proof that open top revolvers are stronger than solid frame revolvers is incorrect. It only proves that a beefier and heavier open top revolver made of modern steel is stronger than an original made of wrought iron. Original Walker revolvers were notorious for cylinders blowing up with 60 grain charges of BP. It's why Sam Colt was unable to produce a more compact .44 revolver than a Dragoon until having access to Bessemer steel in 1860.
Also, while a modern-made repro cylinder might withstand 60 grains of Triple 7 in a Walker repro, it doesn't prove that its open top arbor won't loosen up with a steady diet from such abuse. It also doesn't prove that a solid frame version the same size would not be stronger, if one existed.

I have no idea what your "P6 - Ugh,,,cheaper?!!!" comment even refers to. I made no reference to cost or prices.
The "two-fingered hand" comment baffles me. ??? Where is this discussed and how is it related to anything regarding the strength of a revolver?

And, you still haven't provided any proof, other than your own opinions, that open top revolvers are stronger than solid frames.

Because, obviously none exists.