Did he say that? No....saying that the H&Rs, Ivers, H&A's, and other known brands at the time that weren't the previous three were veritable junk is a dopey thought.
Not true.n 1888 and prior, all the guns were made out of the same metal,
Not true....so there was no difference in that quality,
...which would drive several measures of quality.the difference would be the designs
And don't forget workmanship.
Antiher thug tat S&W had was quality top-breaks in .32 and .38.One thing that Colt, Smith, and Merwin did have that the others didn't were large frame, big bore frontier revolvers intended to be powerful and open carried, not tiny .32 pocket guns for the saloon or the walk home after the night shift.
That is not a very challenging duty cycle.....not tiny .32 pocket guns for the saloon or the walk home after the night shift.
That is an indication of quality.Were they as smooth or as tight as S&W or Colt of the times? Nope,
Maybe thay were. The comparison was with MH and S&WI don't see how apples to apples the HR's and Ivers ... can't be considered equal in durability.
So, you believe that only the H&A was inferior?I've never considered the H&A's to be quality, even in black powder days
After how much usage?they worked and they lasted because those H&R's and Ivers are still found to this day.
That's what people did, and the literature of the day indicates that they were not up to the strains and stresses of heavy usage.The best way to judge these guns is to buy them in as like new condition as possible and shoot them with the proper ammo.
Might that not indicate something?the Young America has an issue retaining the base pin during shooting, which I'm going to blame on the retaining latch spring being worn.