Unsuccessful Revolvers

Status
Not open for further replies.

Timthinker

Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
815
Colt, Remington and Smith & Wesson. These names are indelibly associated with successful handgun designs in the second half of the nineteenth century. Yet, these were not the only revolvers to equip American servicemen and private citizens during this time period. Many revolvers were marketed to the military and private sector which failed to gain a successful foothold. North and Savage, Joslyn and Whitney constitute a few of "the other guys" that never attained the successful status of the major revolver manufacturers. So, in remembrance of these other companies, let us explore the factors that played a prominent role in making some handguns legendary.


Timthinker
 
I'd say the first thing that comes to my mind is each of these manufacturers have several marque guns that have changed shooting in some style or fashion over the years. Colt with it's Walker years ago and the development of the 45LC as well as the 1911, S&W with the 357 and 44mag and ruger with the resurgence of the single action in the blackhawk and the mark I as maybe the single greatest plinking gun ever made.
 
Don't forget Iver Johnson.
They were always a well-regarded, if economy, choice during the latter 19th and much of the 20th centuries.

Those who wrote about and recommended certain sidearms for personal protection during earlier decades (eg, Chic Gaylord) would often specify Iver Johnson right along with Colt and S&W revolvers.
 
The Webley-Fossberry was a pretty unsuccessful revolver. The idea of a full auto revolver is interesting but it would jam too much.
 
Remington would have to be manufacturing experience and quality. They made good guns. Colt came along and made excellent handguns, although it took two tries to get them marketed successfully. Sam Colt is a classic example of an inventor who succeeded by perseverance, not luck. Those of you who aren't sure what I am talking about should look up the Colt - Paterson revolver.

Smith and Wesson is another example of perseverance on top of design that triumphed. Although they patented the pass through chamber, it took years to settle the claims IIRC. Even then, they made the thing in .22 Short. It was novel, but I suspect that it was little more than novelty back in its day. We already knew about large calibers and the debate over bullet diameter is nothing new.

Remington played with semi automatic pistols until well after the turn of the century. Their last repeating handgun was the 51, a .380 supposedly used by George Patton. Of course, they produced 1911A1 pistols for the USA in World War II.

Savage produced some handguns, but they seem to have left that business for the long arms trade, the same as Remington. They made some pocket pistols, among them the model 1905, 1907, and 1917. These were .32 ACP caliber pocket guns and they sold well enough.

Not long after the turn of the century, two things happened that affected Savage and Remington. First, John Moses Browning left Winchester because Winchester wouldn't give him a percentage of Model 11 shotguns sold. Browning went to Fabrique Nationale and Remington ultimately obtained the right to make the gun as the Model 11. This is the Browning Auto 5.

Second was a turn against handguns. The Sullivan Act was passed in New York State in 1911. Other states and cities passed anti handgun laws around then. The pocket pistol was seen as a weapon of the criminal class. This probably influenced some of the more famous makers to get out of the business rather than be associated with an undesirable aspect of shooting. Other companies stayed with the pocket gun trade. Iver Johnson made shotguns and compact revolvers for decades, but the revolvers were not very well made. There is actually a plethora of small makers that produced pocket handguns until about World War II. Savage and Remington were both based in New York State.

Remington also secured the right to build Browning's Model 8 semi automatic hunting rifle. This rifle worked, unlike many semi auto designs of the day. It was sold as a hunting rifle and I don't know why Remington never submitted a modification of it for the Army rifle trials. Remington also made Model 1917 rifles for the Army during World War I, which were patterned after the British SMLE. These were the more common rifle in World War I. The Springfield Arsenal couldn't produce 03-A3 rifles as fast as Remington and Winchester could make 1917s.

Both companies played with handguns through the 20th century. Remington made the XP-100 bolt action pistol and Savage made the Striker, of the same configuration. These are heavy and large handguns that fire centerfire rifle cartridges. They are intended for silhouette shooting and handgun hunting. I think both are out of production right now.

In general, I think that Remington, Savage, and Winchester chose their markets and produced accordingly. Hindsight being 20-20, it's safe to say they made the right decision.
 
Sig, good points. When I thought of this thread, several factors for success crossed my mind. One was a good product at the right time. Colt produced his best designs in time for the Western expansion and Civil War. These factors certainly stimulated the firearms market. Colt also benefited from American patent laws that bought him precious time to develop his products. And let us not forget aggressive marketing tactics. This certainly benefits successful businesses.

The factors that I briefly mentioned above are not the only reasons for marketing success, but they do provide a good springboard for further discussion. Our history buffs at THR can probably add a wealth of information to what has been said so far. Let us hope they contribute.


Timthinker
 
The Webley-Fossberry was a pretty unsuccessful revolver. The idea of a full auto revolver is interesting but it would jam too much.
It wasn't a full-auto revolver.
It was a semi-auto in the since that it cocked the hammer and rotated the cylinder from recoil action.
You still had to pull the trigger for each shot.

As for failed and successful guns, an awful lot was due more to economic conditions at the time, and landing military contracts, or not.

Colt for instance, went bankrupt twice before finally getting off to a good start.
S&W survived several hard times due to huge military contracts with Russia and others.

Other fine revolver companies, such as Merwin & Hubert, didn't make it through hard times because they never were able to land any large military contracts.

1224.jpg
rcmodel
 
Other fine revolver companies, such as Merwin & Hubert, didn't make it through hard times because they never were able to land any large military contracts.

One reason M&H did not land any military contracts was that the fit and finish of their guns were a bit ahead of their time. Black power was the powder of the time and the fit of M&Hs guns was such that they tended to foul rather quickly. This ruled them out for military use and in the harsher conditions of the west.

By the 1880s a number of states and localities had outlawed open carry in towns and cities. Texas and Califonia were among them. This spurred the market for concealable holsters and smaller carry guns. The first pocket holster began to appear.

tipoc
 
While not really, by definition, unsuccessful, I have always thought that the top-break revolver design got left behind at the turn of the century. Of course with the advent of more powerful smokeless powders, and the strength of the solid frame/swing-out cylinder design, the top-break was rather quickly discarded as a platform for more advanced technological improvements. Only the British, with their Webley, and later, Enfield revolvers, still considered the top-break to have enough capability as to use them in front line service, through two world wars. I still think with the right design, and with modern manufacturing and metalurgical technology, a more updated top-break revolver could still be a viable product in todays market.
 
It was a semi-auto in the since that it cocked the hammer and rotated the cylinder from recoil action.
Then that makes it one of the stupidest revolvers ever. Hey, lets find a way to make a revolver do exactly what it does now but worse.
 
Well, not exactly. It was a single-action self-loader, so the trigger was only SA. It was popular as a target pistol for that reason - no long, heavy trigger pull. In a way, it is a brilliant design. It sure took care of Miles Archer.
 
Yeah but Archer had gone to meet a woman not for a gunfight.

The top break Webleys were good guns, fast on the reload. They were a succesful gun.

tipoc
 
I like top breaks, they reload quickly for a revolver. The thing is, a stronger top latch needs to be designed to make them viable again. That's their weak point.
 
The top break design is what always attacted me to the H&R 999 .22rf revolver. Still does, but I wish the revolver was made better.
 
Any thing in 9mm. A shame, because it's cheap and does a good job of maintaining its velocity out of short barrels.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top