Top Break revolvers and Steel

[Johnm1]

I would wonder if the $3.80 #891 Frontier Revolver was Belgian made, rather than American. I associate Webley RIC-style revolvers in large calibers more with Belgium than the US, but that's just an impression.

I suppose the Frontier model could be by contract from anybody including the Belgians or even Webley. The 44 Winchester caliber leads me to lean towards an American builder but any manufacturer in any part of the world could build an ‘American’ caliber. Not like a 44-40 couldn’t be built in Europe.

Forehand &Wadsworth reportedly made over 100,000 of the British Bulldogs and H&R and H&A probably made a lot more than that. Though I get the association with Belgian made.

 

[Monac]

I suppose the Frontier model could be by contract from anybody including the Belgians or even Webley. The 44 Winchester caliber leads me to lean towards an American builder but any manufacturer in any part of the world could build an ‘American’ caliber. Not like a 44-40 couldn’t be built in Europe.

Forehand &Wadsworth reportedly made over 100,000 of the British Bulldogs and H&R and H&A probably made a lot more than that. Though I get the association with Belgian made.

I agree with everything you say except the suggestion about Webley. They are a well researched company, and if they had made a revolver in 44-40, it would be well known.

 

[Johnm1]

, it would be well known.

Good point.

 

[Jim Watson]

For some reason, the European clone labs were partial to the Colt cartridges.
The .38 Largo is not enough different from .38 LC to matter.
And Winchester, large frame models are as often seen in .44 1873 as .44 Russian.
One theory about why there are so many Spanish made .32-20s is that it was a simple change from 8mm Lebel Revolver as made for a weapon hungry France in WW I.

Sorry, guys, a post of "Where do I get parts for my nameless Spanish knockoff." is not going to find much.

 

[Monac]

Sorry, guys, a post of "Where do I get parts for my nameless Spanish knockoff." is not going to find much.

Oh, we're not playing that game today. We're speculating about who made a $3.80 Webley RIC-style revolver sold by Sears Roebuck in their 1897 catalog. It's in post #73, by sleepy squirrel2. So far, the smart money is on "not Webley".

 

[Jim Watson]

By my 1901 Sears catalog, that gun was up to $4.50 and the admittedly imported imitation Smith and Wesson top break .44 WCF was a whopping $5.50.

I am torn between Spanish and Belgian, leaning Spanish. If he had the actual gun it would be easy to tell by proof marks.

But I do not see the exact type in Zhuk, Alfa, or Ezell, my only references.

 

[sleepysquirrel2]

Sleepy squirrel, thanks very much for putting up these catalog pages. They are very informative. The Hartley & Graham one shows not only the H&R 32 cartridge, but also a variety of S&W 32 rounds I was not familiar with, all very interesting.

You're welcome.
The 32-44 S&W is a special cartridge made for the Model 3 target pistols, basically a model 3 with the 44 russian frame, but bored out to a special 32 caliber target cartridge. The same with the 38-44 S&W.
The 32 S&W rifle is for the 320 S&W revolving rifle.

Now the $3.80 Frontier model has me intrigued. It appears to be a Sears contracted F&W British Bulldog only chambered in 44-40! I have only seen them discussed in the original British 44 and 45 calibers. Can you imagine lighting one of these off in 44-40! I want one.

I suppose the Frontier model could be by contract from anybody including the Belgians or even Webley. The 44 Winchester caliber leads me to lean towards an American builder but any manufacturer in any part of the world could build an ‘American’ caliber. Not like a 44-40 couldn’t be built in Europe.

I'm fairly certain the "Frontier Bulldogs" are belgian, since the ones I've seen on auction sites etc. have belgian proofs. They also commonly have a trigger guard spur, not unlike the S&W russian model, though there' s a lot of variation; it seems like they were made by a variety of belgian gunmakers.

Here's a couple examples:

https://www.gunauction.com/buy/8509835
https://www.gunsinternational.com/g...lldog--revolver-in--44-w.cfm?gun_id=101011995
https://www.liveauctioneers.com/en-gb/item/57160020_fn-frontier-bulldog-revolver
https://www.riverjunction.com/4975
https://www.gunvaluesboard.com/frontier-bulldog-15788217.html
https://collegehillarsenal.com/belgian-frontier-army-44-40-revolver




My understanding is these were relatively cheaply made european pistols, made for export to the united states where the 44-40 was popular.

To go back to the topic of top breaks though, there were also a few "Frontier" top breaks also made in belgium, commonly marked with "Belgium" and "For 44 Winchester Cartridge"

https://www.gunsinternational.com/g...olver-for-the-us-market-.cfm?gun_id=101371243
https://www.gunauction.com/buy/4245969
https://www.gunauction.com/buy/12138357
https://www.gunauction.com/buy/12500097



Not sure how much I would trust the metallurgy on these though

In fact if either of you wants to take a gamble with a sketchy belgian knockoff, there's a couple listed on GB right now

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/894306194
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/896985158

 

[sleepysquirrel2]

For some reason, the European clone labs were partial to the Colt cartridges.
The .38 Largo is not enough different from .38 LC to matter.

Funny, i think that's because the europeans came up with the 380 revolver cartridge first, and colt copied them to make the 38 short colt

the .380 Revolver cartridge was introduced in Britain in c. 1868 and became an extremely popular self defence cartridge for Bulldog type pocket revolvers here and in Europe. In America, the .38 Short Colt was derived from it, thence the .38 Long Colt and finally the .38 Special. Typically for a late 1860s cartridge, it uses a heel-type bullet with external lubrication. It therefore eventually lost ground to the later, internally lubricated (and thus cleaner to handle) .38 Smith & Wesson, which was also rather mor powerful, although it continued to be chambered in cheap European revolvers up until 1914.

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30027030
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30027015

The only difference is colt made the rim slightly thicker. So 38 colt will work on most 380 revolvers, but sometimes need to have the rim thinned slightly to chamber.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

And Winchester, large frame models are as often seen in .44 1873 as .44 Russian.

Not really. There were far, far more S&W Top Breaks chambered for 44 Russian than 44-40 (aka 44 1873 or 44 WCF). I don't have all the numbers handy, but there were over 150,000 Russian models made, most were chambered for 44 Russian, only a few were chambered for 44 Henry Rimfire. None were ever chambered for 44-40, the cylinders were too short to accommodate a cartridge that long. Both the New Model Number Three and the 44 Double Action were chambered for 44-40, but again not very many. I just grabbed my copy of the Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson. The New Model Number Three was chambered for 17 different cartridges. I won't go into all of them here, but the great majority of the 47,000 or so produced were chambered for 44 Russian. Of those, 2072 were chambered for 44-40 and only 74 were chambered for 38-40. With the 44 Double Action, again, most of the 53,590 were chambered for 44 Russian. 15,340 were chambered for 44-40, and only 276 were chambered for 38-40.

he 32-44 S&W is a special cartridge made for the Model 3 target pistols, basically a model 3 with the 44 russian frame, but bored out to a special 32 caliber target cartridge. The same with the 38-44 S&W.

Sorry, but I get real picky about identifying the different large frame Top Break revolvers that S&W made on the #3 sized frame. There five separate models that were built on the #3 sized frame.

This is a Smith and Wesson Russian Model, specifically a 2nd Model. Easily recognized by the pronounced hump on the rear of the grip and the spur on the trigger guard. The great majority were chambered for 44 Russian. This model was never chambered for the 32-44 nor the 38-44 cartridges.






This is a Smith and Wesson New Model Number Three Target Model. Notice how much different the frame is than the Russian model. The hump on the rear of the grip frame is much smaller, there is no spur no the trigger guard, and the extractor housing under the barrel is much shorter than on the Russian Model. This one is a target model because of the drift adjustable rear sight and the target style front sight with a bead on top. This one happens to be chambered for the 38-44 cartridge, but this model was also chambered for the 32-44 cartridge. Note: the 38-44 target cartridge is not to be confused with the later 38-44 high velocity 38 Special cartridge from the 1930s.






Here is a page from a reprint of a 1900 S&W catalog describing the 32-44 and 38-44 cartridges.




P.S. I had a chance to buy that NM#3 Target Model a few years ago. Still kicking myself that I passed it up. However, I did get a chance to fire it. 38S&W (not 38 Special) cartridges chambered and fired in it just fine.

 

[Jim Watson]

Not really. There were far, far more S&W Top Breaks chambered for 44 Russian than 44-40 (aka 44 1873 or 44 WCF)

I was talking about the European knockoffs, not real US Smith and Wesson.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

I was talking about the European knockoffs, not real US Smith and Wesson.

A thousand apologies. I did not realize that.



Here are a few photos I have downloaded from the internet over the years of fake Smith and Wesson revolvers. Some are knock offs of the Russian Model, some are knock offs of the 44 Double Action. Quality ranges from not very good to dismal. Most of the cheap knock offs were being made in Belgium at the time, although the first one was made in Turkey. We are talking about the late 1800s here, and international law did not yet recognize American patents. One company was so brazen that it stamped Smith and Wesson right onto their fakes. Daniel Wesson had suffered the loss of some of his property when he was a young man. He was working for his brother Edwin making precision target rifles. Edwin had recently expanded his business and borrowed heavily to raise the capital for the expansion. Then Edwin dropped dead of a heart attack. Daniel had been mostly running the business, but when Edwin's creditors took control of the company, Daniel lost some of his personal possessions. This made a deep impact on young Daniel and he always made sure to protect himself and his company with patents and other legal arrangements. That is why Rollin White went broke because Daniel had insisted that White had the responsibility to police the White patent for patent infringements.

Anyway, Daniel did what he could to protect the company's intellectual property from cheap imitations, but international law did not yet have much to say about European companies making knock offs of patented American firearms. Daniel did manage to get one Belgian company to stop making cheap knock offs of S&W designs, but the details escape me right now.

Anyway, here are a bunch of cheap European made knock offs of S&W Top Break revolvers.

 

[Jim Watson]

Spain was a major supplier of substitute standard handguns in the World Wars.
For this thread, a S&W-ish top break in .455 Webley.
https://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/164615672389/spanish-webleys-pistol-op-no1-mk1-no2

 

[TTv2]

As far as the durability of old top-breaks go is that many years ago, I was told by a gunsmith who was old at the time that most of the small top breaks he encountered were fairly loose, except for the ones made by Smith & Wesson. I cannot substantiate that, and it is only one man's opinion, so take it for what it's worth.

He didn't specify which they were, which means he may have gotten a lot of Hopkins & Allen or US Revolver ones across his bench.

Of the two H&R's I own, both pre-1941, they're good and tight. Only the swing out 732 had an issue, the timing was off for one chamber.