Break top revolvers? Questions regarding this design.
- Thread starter Kimio
- Start date
Mike Irwin
Staff
Always loved the 4 foot high front sight on those double-action only No. 2 Mk I*s...
Only way to get the bullet on target was to align the sights, which pointed the muzzle at the ground at your feet.
Then, as you pulled through the roughly 700-pound trigger pull, the muzzle naturally rises as your muscles contract...
What a system!
Only way to get the bullet on target was to align the sights, which pointed the muzzle at the ground at your feet.
Then, as you pulled through the roughly 700-pound trigger pull, the muzzle naturally rises as your muscles contract...
What a system!
Indy!...; Rolling Stones music video: British troops....
To my limited knowledge, the "break-top" wheelguns were in use often with the UK's armed forces. I think the Webley .455 sidearm was issued to army officers & mounted(horse) troops.
If I recall, Dr. Henry Jones; aka: Indiana packed a big break-top revolver in the third adventure film. I may check www.imfdb.org or the special Indiana Jones film gear-weapons fan website.
BTW: any forum members know what kind of break-top revolver Keith Richards uses in the old Rolling Stones music video for "Undercover"?
I know it's an 80s era video but the big revolver looks like a 1800s era military sidearm. A .44 or maybe a .455 caliber.
Thanks:
Clyde
To my limited knowledge, the "break-top" wheelguns were in use often with the UK's armed forces. I think the Webley .455 sidearm was issued to army officers & mounted(horse) troops.
If I recall, Dr. Henry Jones; aka: Indiana packed a big break-top revolver in the third adventure film. I may check www.imfdb.org or the special Indiana Jones film gear-weapons fan website.
BTW: any forum members know what kind of break-top revolver Keith Richards uses in the old Rolling Stones music video for "Undercover"?
I know it's an 80s era video but the big revolver looks like a 1800s era military sidearm. A .44 or maybe a .455 caliber.
Thanks:
Clyde
Mike Irwin
Staff
The Schofield IS a number 3 model. It is simply, like the Russian model with the funky finger spur, a sub variant created by making changes to the basic number 3.
I suppose the truly correct nomenclature is No. 3, and terms like American, Russian, Turkish, and Schofield are descriptive phrases that serve to further identify particular variations.
I suppose the truly correct nomenclature is No. 3, and terms like American, Russian, Turkish, and Schofield are descriptive phrases that serve to further identify particular variations.
Bob Wright
New member
The number 3 referred to the size of the frame.
The No.1 was .22 R.F. six shot. The No. 1 1/2 was a five shot .32 R.F. and the No. 2 was a six shot .32 R.F., the No.3 was originally a .44 R.F. but had the centerfire offerings added later.
The No.3 was identified as The Russian Model, New Model Russian, 2nd Model Russian, Schofield (or Army Model) etc.
The Nos. 1 ~ 2 were tip up models.
Bob Wright
The No.1 was .22 R.F. six shot. The No. 1 1/2 was a five shot .32 R.F. and the No. 2 was a six shot .32 R.F., the No.3 was originally a .44 R.F. but had the centerfire offerings added later.
The No.3 was identified as The Russian Model, New Model Russian, 2nd Model Russian, Schofield (or Army Model) etc.
The Nos. 1 ~ 2 were tip up models.
Bob Wright
Winchester_73
New member
Sorry I don't use twitter so I will field this one. The special trigger guard with the spur was not on these US models. Mike was saying that the Schofield was another variant LIKE the Russian which had the extra spur on the trigger guard. It was on most of the Russian models, but not on other model 3s such as the Schofield AFAIK unless special ordered. The Russians did have it because they specifically requested their revolvers to have that. The US No 3s were in 45 S&W as you said. The model 1 was a 22 short rimfire tip up revolver and the model 2 aka the old army model was a 32 rimfire tip up. So basically 1 smallest frame, 2 was medium and 3 was the large frame revolver. Then there was a model 1.5 later, where they made the frame smaller on the 32 tip up, aka size bigger than a model 1 but smaller than 2 makes 1.5 and there was a new model 2, another name for the 38 S&W centerfire single action spur 5 shot revolver, which came later. Its not that confusing really.
Sort of but not really. In its day, the top break design was chambered for the 38 wcf and 44 wcf. Back then, that was pretty darn near the top. S&W refused to chamber their revolvers in 45 colt. They easily could have. They wanted their chamberings to get a contract and so did not wish to marry their (in their opinion superior) design to a cartridge from their rival, Colt. Notice how easy that the No 3 was adapted to 45 colt in today's reproductions. S&W simply chose not to despite the US government asking them. They were popular for a long time and were an upgrade over the other types of revolvers such as percussion, solid frame ctg (cylinder had to be removed for unloading), open top ctg (cylinder had to be removed to unload spent ctgs), and IMO the S&W breaktop was a better field gun than the Colt SAA. The reload as much faster. The colt was a natural pointer, felt great in the hand, and was offered in the 45 colt chambering, but I would prefer the quicker reload myself. Many famous outlaws such as Frank James and John Wesley Hardin had S&W No 3s.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Please be patient with me"
NO!
"So was the one the army used a #3, only chambered for the shorter .45 S&W cartridge"
Yes. It was a No. 3.
Bear with me, this is a little confusing...
The US Army actually used SEVERAL different No. 3s.
The first, the .44 American, was the first cartridge revolver adopted by the US Army in, IIRC, 1869.
It was chambered for the .44 Smith & Wesson, which after a few years became known as the .44 S&W American to differentiate it from the .44 Smith & Wesson cartridge.
The Army only took a few thousand of those revolvers as a stop gap measure while it and Colt were finalizing what would become the Model 1873 Peacemaker.
After adoption of the Peacemaker, the Army requested that S&W submit another series of revolvers for evaluation. These were, for all intents and purposes, identical to the .44 Americans, except that the Army wanted them chambered in .45 Long Colt, which had been adopted with the Model 1873 Colt.
S&W said "Nope, can't do it because it would require us to re-engineer our entire gun due to the length of the cartridge," but they submitted guns chambered for a shorter cartridge, the .45 S&W.
Around the same time, Col. George (? I think that's correct) Schofield, a Cavalry officer who was testing one of the revolvers in .45 S&W, approached the company with several changes that he contended would make the arm of MUCH better service to the Cavalry.
The primary change was to strengthen and relocate the latch, making it less likely to pop open inadvertently and also making it easier to open while on horseback.
Smith & Wesson saw the benefit of those changes and started producing those guns, which becamse the Schofield model revolver.
The Schofield model is STILL a Number 3 revolver, but it's a modified No. 3.
After the Army contracts fell through Smith & Wesson went BACK to the original latch design because it was cheaper to produce.
but with a different trigger guard?
No. The Schofield had the standard Number 3-style trigger guard.
The Russian model, though, had a modified trigger guard that was, to the best of my knowledge, produced ONLY on the guns contracted by Russia.
The Russian Model, though, is still a Number 3.
About 1876 or so the Russians also proposed a number of other changes to the basic model, including the shape of the grip.
S&W decided to adopt a modified grip on all Number 3s going forward, and generally these guns are known as New Model Number 3s.
What happened to, or what were the #1's and #2's?
How best to explain this...
Smith & Wesson used numbers to designate the basic size of the revolver's frame.
In the case of the Number 1, those were the original Smith & Wesson break open revolvers, chambered for a number of rimfire cartridges.
Only, with the Number 1, the hinge was on the TOP of the frame, not the bottom.
Right after the Civil War, S&W flipped that round and introduced the Number 1 and 1/2. It chambered most of the same cartridges, but the hinge was on the bottom of the frame.
The Number 2 revolver was the medium sized frame for centerfire cartridges like the .32 S&W and the .38 S&W.
The Number 3 was the full sized, or what we'd probably today call the Magnum, frame for the large-bore cartridges.
NO!
"So was the one the army used a #3, only chambered for the shorter .45 S&W cartridge"
Yes. It was a No. 3.
Bear with me, this is a little confusing...
The US Army actually used SEVERAL different No. 3s.
The first, the .44 American, was the first cartridge revolver adopted by the US Army in, IIRC, 1869.
It was chambered for the .44 Smith & Wesson, which after a few years became known as the .44 S&W American to differentiate it from the .44 Smith & Wesson cartridge.
The Army only took a few thousand of those revolvers as a stop gap measure while it and Colt were finalizing what would become the Model 1873 Peacemaker.
After adoption of the Peacemaker, the Army requested that S&W submit another series of revolvers for evaluation. These were, for all intents and purposes, identical to the .44 Americans, except that the Army wanted them chambered in .45 Long Colt, which had been adopted with the Model 1873 Colt.
S&W said "Nope, can't do it because it would require us to re-engineer our entire gun due to the length of the cartridge," but they submitted guns chambered for a shorter cartridge, the .45 S&W.
Around the same time, Col. George (? I think that's correct) Schofield, a Cavalry officer who was testing one of the revolvers in .45 S&W, approached the company with several changes that he contended would make the arm of MUCH better service to the Cavalry.
The primary change was to strengthen and relocate the latch, making it less likely to pop open inadvertently and also making it easier to open while on horseback.
Smith & Wesson saw the benefit of those changes and started producing those guns, which becamse the Schofield model revolver.
The Schofield model is STILL a Number 3 revolver, but it's a modified No. 3.
After the Army contracts fell through Smith & Wesson went BACK to the original latch design because it was cheaper to produce.
but with a different trigger guard?
No. The Schofield had the standard Number 3-style trigger guard.
The Russian model, though, had a modified trigger guard that was, to the best of my knowledge, produced ONLY on the guns contracted by Russia.
The Russian Model, though, is still a Number 3.
About 1876 or so the Russians also proposed a number of other changes to the basic model, including the shape of the grip.
S&W decided to adopt a modified grip on all Number 3s going forward, and generally these guns are known as New Model Number 3s.
What happened to, or what were the #1's and #2's?
How best to explain this...
Smith & Wesson used numbers to designate the basic size of the revolver's frame.
In the case of the Number 1, those were the original Smith & Wesson break open revolvers, chambered for a number of rimfire cartridges.
Only, with the Number 1, the hinge was on the TOP of the frame, not the bottom.
Right after the Civil War, S&W flipped that round and introduced the Number 1 and 1/2. It chambered most of the same cartridges, but the hinge was on the bottom of the frame.
The Number 2 revolver was the medium sized frame for centerfire cartridges like the .32 S&W and the .38 S&W.
The Number 3 was the full sized, or what we'd probably today call the Magnum, frame for the large-bore cartridges.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"S&W refused to chamber their revolvers in 45 colt. They easily could have."
Actually, they really couldn't.
Doing so would have required a re-engineering of the entire gun, lengthening the frame and the cylinder, with a corresponding need to change most of the tooling to produce them.
At the same time, S&W was deeply into its contracts with the Russians. In fact, at the time, virtually all of S&W's production capabilities were being tied up making guns for the Russians, they were ordering so many.
So, in order to make the change to the gun to chamber it in .45 Long Colt, they would have seriously impacted their contracts with the Russians.
And at the time, the Russians were paying for their revolvers with shipments of gold bullion.
The US Government? They were paying with promises...
In fact, S&W became SO heavily involved in producing Number 3s for foreign military contracts that, in 1878, when the Army approached S&W and said "Hey, we want another 8,000, maybe more, guns from you. When can you deliver them?"
Smith & Wesson's response? "Sorry, we're busy, come back some other time."
There are some who have speculated that that is what cemented the bond between Colt and the Army regarding handguns right up until the emergency need for guns at the onset of American participation in World War I.
Actually, they really couldn't.
Doing so would have required a re-engineering of the entire gun, lengthening the frame and the cylinder, with a corresponding need to change most of the tooling to produce them.
At the same time, S&W was deeply into its contracts with the Russians. In fact, at the time, virtually all of S&W's production capabilities were being tied up making guns for the Russians, they were ordering so many.
So, in order to make the change to the gun to chamber it in .45 Long Colt, they would have seriously impacted their contracts with the Russians.
And at the time, the Russians were paying for their revolvers with shipments of gold bullion.
The US Government? They were paying with promises...
In fact, S&W became SO heavily involved in producing Number 3s for foreign military contracts that, in 1878, when the Army approached S&W and said "Hey, we want another 8,000, maybe more, guns from you. When can you deliver them?"
Smith & Wesson's response? "Sorry, we're busy, come back some other time."
There are some who have speculated that that is what cemented the bond between Colt and the Army regarding handguns right up until the emergency need for guns at the onset of American participation in World War I.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Well, you've sort of got it, because I gave but a VERY encapsulated and abbreviated version...
But, you're getting there.
But, you're getting there.
The version I read said the Russian order absorbed all of S&W's manufacturing capacity allowing Colt to capture much of the domestic market.
Also read they really can't handle more powerful rounds-38 S&W and .455 Webley is about the most for them. Plus they require some fairly intricate machining.
Also read they really can't handle more powerful rounds-38 S&W and .455 Webley is about the most for them. Plus they require some fairly intricate machining.
Mike Irwin
Staff
No, the Russians paid for all of the guns they ordered. Smith later issued a license for copies to be made by Loewe in germany, and later at Tula arsenal in Russia.
You also have to remember that at the same time Smith was making, and selling, huge numbers of smaller frame revolvers, which alone would have kept the company afloat.
The Light Rifle fiasco almost finished Smith off, but that was in 1940.
You also have to remember that at the same time Smith was making, and selling, huge numbers of smaller frame revolvers, which alone would have kept the company afloat.
The Light Rifle fiasco almost finished Smith off, but that was in 1940.
Wyosmith wrote:
"If a modern gun company were to make one today and use the steels that they have available today, the break top design would be just fine, and could be used in all but the most powerful shells available."
I don't think so. The problem is that the top break MUST have play at the top joint in order for it to open. And every time the gun is fired, that play allows the two parts to batter each other. Not a lot, of course, and careful workmanship will minimize the gap and the battering, but IT WILL BE THERE - it cannot be eliminated.
Revolvers like the old military Webleys gave good service because their cartridges, while large in caliber, were of remarkably low pressure (which is why those Webley revolvers converted to use .45 ACP should NOT be fired with standard .45 ACP loads). The same was true of the S&W revolvers. An S&W No.3 latch would not last long if fired with ammunition at .44 Magnum or even .45 ACP pressures, assuming the cylinder stood up to that punishment. I have seen loose No.3's, indicating that they did not really even stand up well to extensive firing with the black powder ammunition of the day.
Jim
"If a modern gun company were to make one today and use the steels that they have available today, the break top design would be just fine, and could be used in all but the most powerful shells available."
I don't think so. The problem is that the top break MUST have play at the top joint in order for it to open. And every time the gun is fired, that play allows the two parts to batter each other. Not a lot, of course, and careful workmanship will minimize the gap and the battering, but IT WILL BE THERE - it cannot be eliminated.
Revolvers like the old military Webleys gave good service because their cartridges, while large in caliber, were of remarkably low pressure (which is why those Webley revolvers converted to use .45 ACP should NOT be fired with standard .45 ACP loads). The same was true of the S&W revolvers. An S&W No.3 latch would not last long if fired with ammunition at .44 Magnum or even .45 ACP pressures, assuming the cylinder stood up to that punishment. I have seen loose No.3's, indicating that they did not really even stand up well to extensive firing with the black powder ammunition of the day.
Jim
In the fourth post, the original poster was asking about current production top breaks, which begs this question:
It seems that I remember that smith and wesson actually resumed manufacture of the #3 not too long ago, but for a very brief time. And they were pricey.
Does anyone remember that and what were the chamberings?
Did they offer .44 russian and .45 smith and wesson, also known as the .45 short colt. (Just joking about the short colt. I Don't want to start that argument again. LOL)
It seems that I remember that smith and wesson actually resumed manufacture of the #3 not too long ago, but for a very brief time. And they were pricey.
Does anyone remember that and what were the chamberings?
Did they offer .44 russian and .45 smith and wesson, also known as the .45 short colt. (Just joking about the short colt. I Don't want to start that argument again. LOL)
carguychris
New member
I believe you're confusing the No. 3 with the Mosin-Nagant Model 1891, and S&W with Remington.
More here:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4409083&postcount=6