Break top revolvers? Questions regarding this design.
- Thread starter Kimio
- Start date
What about my Keith Richards question?...
BTW, IMFdb.org did list Indiana Jones carry revolver as a Webley Army .455 caliber. It's a huge handgun for the era.
If I recall, Jones used a old S&W .45 DA revolver in the other movies & in the "Raiders" bar fight scene, Indy packed a P-35 9x19mm pistol as a BUG-2nd gun.
If you get the new Blu-Ray set, watch the scene in frame by frame.
For years, I thought Jones used a old 1911 .45acp since a early scene with MI/Army Intel officers bring up his military service.
Clyde
BTW, IMFdb.org did list Indiana Jones carry revolver as a Webley Army .455 caliber. It's a huge handgun for the era.
If I recall, Jones used a old S&W .45 DA revolver in the other movies & in the "Raiders" bar fight scene, Indy packed a P-35 9x19mm pistol as a BUG-2nd gun.
If you get the new Blu-Ray set, watch the scene in frame by frame.
For years, I thought Jones used a old 1911 .45acp since a early scene with MI/Army Intel officers bring up his military service.
Clyde
Bob Wright
New member
According to an article by Roy Jinks, S&W historian, the first S&W No.3 revolvers submitted to the U.S. Army were .44 Henry rimfire. The Army returned the guns wanting a centerfire revovler. S&W simply changed the firing pin (and frame) to centerfire, without changing any chamber dimensions.
Comparing .44 Henry with .44 S&W American and Frankfor Arsenal ammunition, this seems to be the case, as dimensions are so very close to each other.
Bob Wright
Comparing .44 Henry with .44 S&W American and Frankfor Arsenal ammunition, this seems to be the case, as dimensions are so very close to each other.
Bob Wright
According to IMFDB, Indy was originally envisioned as carrying a 1911, but the prop technology of the time did not allow reliable blank cycling in the .45 1911.
Since then, several movies and TV shows that used 1911s snuck in 9mm versions, though they often said they were .45s.
On a related topic, this is why the producers had Gary Cooper carry a captured Luger P08, rather than the correct 1911, in Sergeant York.
Since then, several movies and TV shows that used 1911s snuck in 9mm versions, though they often said they were .45s.
On a related topic, this is why the producers had Gary Cooper carry a captured Luger P08, rather than the correct 1911, in Sergeant York.
Indy-sidearms...
The P-35 9mm/1911a1 .45acp trivia makes sense but it could also have made a lot of sense for Jones to pack or take handguns abroad(Europe-Asia) where he could easily obtain more handgun ammunition. 9x19mm or even .455 caliber rounds might have been quicker to find or cheaper in the mid/late 1930s.
A Browning or FN Hi-Power 9mm(14) would have held more rounds than a 1911 .45acp(8) too. When you go to remote areas(jungles, deserts, etc) that would be important.
CF
The P-35 9mm/1911a1 .45acp trivia makes sense but it could also have made a lot of sense for Jones to pack or take handguns abroad(Europe-Asia) where he could easily obtain more handgun ammunition. 9x19mm or even .455 caliber rounds might have been quicker to find or cheaper in the mid/late 1930s.
A Browning or FN Hi-Power 9mm(14) would have held more rounds than a 1911 .45acp(8) too. When you go to remote areas(jungles, deserts, etc) that would be important.
CF
I don't know what kind of ammunition is most easily obtained in remote jungles and deserts but interestingly enough, some adventure movies actually filmed overseas in the 1930s often as not show Colt Single Action Army revolvers being used. Rifles were invariably Winchesters but not necessarily carbines. One silent movie, The Lost World (the 1925 version, not the one with Jill St. John), I have shows a Luger being carried, though you can't tell what caliber it is. Another movie from 1940 in which a Luger appeared (uncredited) was clearly a .30 caliber, because you saw the empty shell (or at least the shell was a .30 caliber Luger, the bottleneck being obvious).
Actually, I doubt very much was available in the way of handgun ammunition in very many foreign places during the 1930s, but it's interesting to think about.
One biographical book I have, "I married adventure," was about Martin and Osa Johnson, who autographed my copy. The flew around Africa and Southeast Asia and the Pacific making travel/nature films. At one point in her book she lists the guns they brought along and said she was embarassed at how long the list was. But I believe there was only one handgun.
Actually, I doubt very much was available in the way of handgun ammunition in very many foreign places during the 1930s, but it's interesting to think about.
One biographical book I have, "I married adventure," was about Martin and Osa Johnson, who autographed my copy. The flew around Africa and Southeast Asia and the Pacific making travel/nature films. At one point in her book she lists the guns they brought along and said she was embarassed at how long the list was. But I believe there was only one handgun.
Mike Irwin
Staff
The easiest way to do it would be to "go native." Or, really, go colonial.
In other words, match your guns to the colonial power that's in charge where you're going.
For example, if you go to Egypt or India, you're going to find .455 Webley fairly easily.
If you go to Algeria, you're going to find things like .32 ACP, 8mm Lebel Revolver, and 11mm French Ordnance revolver (The Mummy, anyone?).
And, if you go to, say, German East Africa, you're going to probably find 9mm of various flavors and variou 7.63 and 7.65 cartridges.
In other words, match your guns to the colonial power that's in charge where you're going.
For example, if you go to Egypt or India, you're going to find .455 Webley fairly easily.
If you go to Algeria, you're going to find things like .32 ACP, 8mm Lebel Revolver, and 11mm French Ordnance revolver (The Mummy, anyone?).
And, if you go to, say, German East Africa, you're going to probably find 9mm of various flavors and variou 7.63 and 7.65 cartridges.
Days of yore...
I agree with a few of the recent posts.
If you were going to travel from the USA to places unknown or "denied areas"(a common intel-military-spy term) in the 1920s/1930s/1940s, a large caliber DA/SA revolver like a S&W model 27 .357magnum, a 1917 .45acp or a .45LC would be smart. Semi auto ammunition wasn't like it is now. High tech JHPs & well made handgun rounds were not always available.
I wouldn't want to face any angry natives or a big tiger with a .38spl model 10 snub or a semi-auto .380acp that would jam a lot.
Clyde
PS; The Mummy films did have many cool firearms & weapons of the era.
Another good action/crime drama with a lot of guns is; Last Man Standing with Bruce Willis. He uses a brace of 1911a1 pistols with a leather rig.
I agree with a few of the recent posts.
If you were going to travel from the USA to places unknown or "denied areas"(a common intel-military-spy term) in the 1920s/1930s/1940s, a large caliber DA/SA revolver like a S&W model 27 .357magnum, a 1917 .45acp or a .45LC would be smart. Semi auto ammunition wasn't like it is now. High tech JHPs & well made handgun rounds were not always available.
I wouldn't want to face any angry natives or a big tiger with a .38spl model 10 snub or a semi-auto .380acp that would jam a lot.
Clyde
PS; The Mummy films did have many cool firearms & weapons of the era.
Another good action/crime drama with a lot of guns is; Last Man Standing with Bruce Willis. He uses a brace of 1911a1 pistols with a leather rig.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"The Mummy films did have many cool firearms & weapons of the era."
It was actually one of the most accurate, from a firearms standpoing, movies I've ever seen.
There was only one glaring error that I saw, and that was forgiveable...
The Mahdi or whatever they were called troops fighting the French Legionairs at the beginning of the movie seemed to be armed with Mauser rifles that weren't introduced until the early 1930s.
What REALLY impressed the hell out of me, though, was the fact that the Legion troops were armed with Mle 1886 Lebel rifles and O'Connell is shown single feeding his rifle (period correct tactics).
One of the characters in The Mummy (Burns) even carried a Mark V Webley.
It was actually one of the most accurate, from a firearms standpoing, movies I've ever seen.
There was only one glaring error that I saw, and that was forgiveable...
The Mahdi or whatever they were called troops fighting the French Legionairs at the beginning of the movie seemed to be armed with Mauser rifles that weren't introduced until the early 1930s.
What REALLY impressed the hell out of me, though, was the fact that the Legion troops were armed with Mle 1886 Lebel rifles and O'Connell is shown single feeding his rifle (period correct tactics).
One of the characters in The Mummy (Burns) even carried a Mark V Webley.
Just to cover another reason why there are no modern breaktops. The extraction system used with most breaktops has a short throw cam, meaning the extractor will not work with long cartridges. The S&W Schofield worked OK with the short .45 Government round, but would not have worked with the .45 Colt even if the cylinder had been lengthened. The extractor of the Webley Mk IV works fine with .38 S&W; it would not work with .38 Special or .357 Magnum. A manual extractor would work, but one of the main advantages of the break top would be sacrificed.
Jim
Jim
Winchester_73
New member
I'm pretty sure that first poster was right. I'm not sure if S&W made more on their own than was needed or the Russians changed their order. I remember reading that there were many never delivered (for whatever reason) and they were sold off domestically.
I forgot to reply to this earlier: The thing that killed the top break was simply the swing out cylinder technology. Before that, the top break was very popular despite it not being in 45 colt. A revolver didn't need to be in 45 colt for it to be useful in combat or for general purpose. SAAs at the time were NOT often seen esp in 45 colt. They of course were not rare, but they were the latest and greatest and so many people could not attain and/or afford one. S&W chose not to adapt their design to 45 colt BUT the design itself was fine for 45 colt. It was just a technicality. The reason why it was not in magnum cals was because the first magnum came out in 1935, after the swing out cylinder had been around since 1889 (Colt).
That's correct but on the other hand, the frame would have been the only part that had to be remade. If they wanted to lengthen it to get another contract (remember that the longer frame would have worked for all of the other cals) they would have. They also didn't want to do it. S&Ws in 45 colt were fairly rare until the 1950s and then finally the model 25-5 around 1980 made the S&W revolver in 45 colt an easy to get item. S&W to my knowledge never made a 38 colt revolver nor a 41 colt revolver. They also didn't bother with a 45 acp semi design (or even revolvers other than government contract) of their own until decades after Colt started making the 1911. It was a little more than production issues. They wanted people to shoot their guns AND their ammo. They didn't want a great design to be married to a competition's ctg. Colt was similar but the S&W ctg designs were so successful they couldn't afford to ignore the S&W cals. S&W invented far more excellent ctgs than Colt did.
EDIT - corrected a few typos
Last edited:
Magnum Wheel Man
New member
actually...
not all top breaks were auto extraction, & rumor I heard, is "real gunmen" prefered the manual extraction guns for more positive extraction...
...
... he's digging for a pic...
yup... I have a couple... this is one of mine, an early 38 S&W chambered H&R hand ejector...
not all top breaks were auto extraction, & rumor I heard, is "real gunmen" prefered the manual extraction guns for more positive extraction...
...
... he's digging for a pic...
yup... I have a couple... this is one of mine, an early 38 S&W chambered H&R hand ejector...
micromontenegro
New member
And then there was this: http://world.guns.ru/handguns/double-action-revolvers/rus/izhmeh-mp-412-e.html
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Thats correct but on the other hand, the frame would have been the only part that had to be remade."
Sorry, but that's incorrect.
The grip frame, the barrel extension, and the cylinder all would have had to have been reworked to ensure proper cartridge clearance had the gun been rechambered in .45 Long Colt.
OK, I've just found a reference to S&W's interaction with the Russians in the write up on Wikipedia, which claims that it comes from this: http://www.sam-hane.com/sass/schofield/history.htm
However, in reading that article, I can't see where it says what Wikipedia says it says.
To be perfectly honest I do NOT recall reading anything of the sort in either Roy Jink's history of the company or Supica and Nahaus' books.
Even so, I seriously question the "almost went bankrupt" given the company very strong sales of both smaller frame revolvers as well as their other military contracts at the same time, plus the strong sales of their No. 3s on the US market.
"If they wanted to lengthen it to get another contract"
As I already indicated, S&W REFUSED an 1878 request by the Army for an additional several thousand revolvers because they didn't want to stop production of orders that they already had in order to retool the production lines.
IIRC the Army wanted no more than 8,000 revolvers, a drop in the bucket really compared to the orders that the company already had.
It doesn't make much sense to tick off the customers that you already have to comply with the request from a customer who may, but very likely would not, order a significant number of additional guns.
"S&W to my knowledge never made a 38 colt revolver nor a 41 colt revolver."
No, they didn't, and there are some pretty solid reasons why, really...
If you look at the different cartridges offered by the two companies, with the exception of the .45 Long, virtually ALL of Colt's cartridge offerings were heavily outsold by Smith & Wesson's cartridges to the point where Colt was forced to drop their offerings and chamber the S&W rounds.
Given that kind of success and acceptance, why would S&W want to adopt a whole series of cartridges that were largely inferior to their own?
Oh, and regarding the .38 Colt revolver... Yes, Smith & Wesson did make at least several hundred, chambered in .38 Long Colt, but they marked the guns .38 US Service Cartridge.
Those were the original run of Model of 1899 Hand Ejectors, which S&W was rushing to get to market, and did so before they could put the finishing touches on what, for all intents and purposes, would become THE universal American revolver cartridge, the .38 Smith & Wesson Special.
"They also didn't bother with a 45 acp design of their own until decades after Colt started making the 1911."
Well, if you ignore the 1917 revolver, and its post WW I counterparts, I suppose... but, given that Smith & Wesson didn't even seriously enter the semi-automatic handgun market until AFTER World War II (largely because they didn't have to their revolvers were selling so well), I'm not sure what your point is.
Also, one could turn that statement around this way...
Colt never entered the double-action handgun market (which Smith & Wesson entered in the 1950s) until decades after Smith & Wesson, and by the time they did the company was already so far behind the curve that they couldn't hope to catch up.... Not to mention that, pretty universally, their double action designs were largely flops both mechanically and in the market place...
Sorry, but that's incorrect.
The grip frame, the barrel extension, and the cylinder all would have had to have been reworked to ensure proper cartridge clearance had the gun been rechambered in .45 Long Colt.
OK, I've just found a reference to S&W's interaction with the Russians in the write up on Wikipedia, which claims that it comes from this: http://www.sam-hane.com/sass/schofield/history.htm
However, in reading that article, I can't see where it says what Wikipedia says it says.
To be perfectly honest I do NOT recall reading anything of the sort in either Roy Jink's history of the company or Supica and Nahaus' books.
Even so, I seriously question the "almost went bankrupt" given the company very strong sales of both smaller frame revolvers as well as their other military contracts at the same time, plus the strong sales of their No. 3s on the US market.
"If they wanted to lengthen it to get another contract"
As I already indicated, S&W REFUSED an 1878 request by the Army for an additional several thousand revolvers because they didn't want to stop production of orders that they already had in order to retool the production lines.
IIRC the Army wanted no more than 8,000 revolvers, a drop in the bucket really compared to the orders that the company already had.
It doesn't make much sense to tick off the customers that you already have to comply with the request from a customer who may, but very likely would not, order a significant number of additional guns.
"S&W to my knowledge never made a 38 colt revolver nor a 41 colt revolver."
No, they didn't, and there are some pretty solid reasons why, really...
If you look at the different cartridges offered by the two companies, with the exception of the .45 Long, virtually ALL of Colt's cartridge offerings were heavily outsold by Smith & Wesson's cartridges to the point where Colt was forced to drop their offerings and chamber the S&W rounds.
Given that kind of success and acceptance, why would S&W want to adopt a whole series of cartridges that were largely inferior to their own?
Oh, and regarding the .38 Colt revolver... Yes, Smith & Wesson did make at least several hundred, chambered in .38 Long Colt, but they marked the guns .38 US Service Cartridge.
Those were the original run of Model of 1899 Hand Ejectors, which S&W was rushing to get to market, and did so before they could put the finishing touches on what, for all intents and purposes, would become THE universal American revolver cartridge, the .38 Smith & Wesson Special.
"They also didn't bother with a 45 acp design of their own until decades after Colt started making the 1911."
Well, if you ignore the 1917 revolver, and its post WW I counterparts, I suppose... but, given that Smith & Wesson didn't even seriously enter the semi-automatic handgun market until AFTER World War II (largely because they didn't have to their revolvers were selling so well), I'm not sure what your point is.
Also, one could turn that statement around this way...
Colt never entered the double-action handgun market (which Smith & Wesson entered in the 1950s) until decades after Smith & Wesson, and by the time they did the company was already so far behind the curve that they couldn't hope to catch up.... Not to mention that, pretty universally, their double action designs were largely flops both mechanically and in the market place...
Last edited:
Winchester_73
New member
The frame obviously, and they could have just designed a new cylinder for 45 colt if it was too short BUT why a new barrel extension?
The point is that they were resistant to chambering Colt ctgs. Aside from all of the "Russian contract first" stuff - S&W definitely did not want to make revolvers in colt cals. I was thinking about a semi auto design in my "no 45 acp statement", but in reality, they didn't make 45 acp revolvers in great numbers except for the 1917. I think its fairly obvious that they wanted to chamber their guns in their cals until much later, where they were they pulled much farther ahead as a company.
I'm guessing you have a typo here. S&W entered the DA handgun market in 1880 approx and the DA swing out hand ejector marked in 1896. Colt had a 1877 DA model followed by the 1889 Army / Navy DA hand ejector revolver. The 1889 was not a flop. Production wise, I don't know if you could even call the 1877 lightning and thunderer or the 1878 45 a "flop" from a sales perspective. From a design perspective, perhaps, but they were pretty early, and so, one must allow for short comings. Can you explain your post
Mike Irwin
Staff
"The frame obviously, and they could have just designed a new cylinder for 45 colt if it was too short BUT why a new barrel extension?"
OK...
Take a good look at a No. 3. If you fit a longer cylinder, you have to lengthen the what we now call the bottom strap, on which the barrel assembly pivots.
The barrel and top strap are all one forging. If you lengthen the bottom strap, you MUST lengthen the top strap, or it's going to be too short to engage the latch.
"The point is that they were resistant to chambering Colt ctgs."
As I noted, they didn't need to. Domestically, the .44 American and .44 Russian cartridges were very popular and sold very well commercially. Why add another cartridge when you're already having problems meeting all of the orders for guns for cartridges that you already produce? It doesn't make good business sense.
And, lastly, not really a typo, but an imprecision. Colt didn't enter the double-action semi-automatic market until well after World War II.
Finally, I've just finished re-reading the entire section on the Number 3 Model in Roy Jinks "History of Smith & Wesson."
He goes into pretty extensive detail about the variety of contracts that the Russians signed with Smith & Wesson, but makes absolutely no mention of contract defaults, undelivered guns, or looming bankruptcy.
He does say, however, that the Number 3's popularity, and in particular the various military contracts it signed for these guns, put the company on a secure financial footing and helped give it the capital necessary to move forward once those contracts did end.
And, I just reminded myself as to why the Schofield modifications were never incorporated into the No. 3 model generally...
Schofield was getting a nice, big royalty for use of his designs, and S&W didn't want to pay it when the existing design was more than adequate.
I also can't see where anything like that is mentioned in my second edition Jinks and Nahaus, either.
If that actually happened, one would expect that one or the other, especially Jinks, would have mentioned it as he does other down periods during the company's history.
OK...
Take a good look at a No. 3. If you fit a longer cylinder, you have to lengthen the what we now call the bottom strap, on which the barrel assembly pivots.
The barrel and top strap are all one forging. If you lengthen the bottom strap, you MUST lengthen the top strap, or it's going to be too short to engage the latch.
"The point is that they were resistant to chambering Colt ctgs."
As I noted, they didn't need to. Domestically, the .44 American and .44 Russian cartridges were very popular and sold very well commercially. Why add another cartridge when you're already having problems meeting all of the orders for guns for cartridges that you already produce? It doesn't make good business sense.
And, lastly, not really a typo, but an imprecision. Colt didn't enter the double-action semi-automatic market until well after World War II.
Finally, I've just finished re-reading the entire section on the Number 3 Model in Roy Jinks "History of Smith & Wesson."
He goes into pretty extensive detail about the variety of contracts that the Russians signed with Smith & Wesson, but makes absolutely no mention of contract defaults, undelivered guns, or looming bankruptcy.
He does say, however, that the Number 3's popularity, and in particular the various military contracts it signed for these guns, put the company on a secure financial footing and helped give it the capital necessary to move forward once those contracts did end.
And, I just reminded myself as to why the Schofield modifications were never incorporated into the No. 3 model generally...
Schofield was getting a nice, big royalty for use of his designs, and S&W didn't want to pay it when the existing design was more than adequate.
I also can't see where anything like that is mentioned in my second edition Jinks and Nahaus, either.
If that actually happened, one would expect that one or the other, especially Jinks, would have mentioned it as he does other down periods during the company's history.
Don't know near as much S&W history as you folks do, although I have been a S&W fan for a long time. I just wanted to mention in reference to the 45 colt round in a top break, that starting about 1886? the DA frontier revolver came out in .44-40 cal. That is the same length as a 45 colt. I think it would've been easier to make a 45 colt than you may think. Would like to know your thoughts.
Here's my DA 44-40 frontier.
Here's my DA 44-40 frontier.