So, this may be a stupid question, but why doesn't S&W make any single action revolvers? I mean, the company began with top-break single action revolvers so why don't they continue to produce any new models? Heck, why not even do a Single Action Army clone? I think it would be cool if they showed a little love to the cowboy action shooter market.
S&W Single Action Revolver
- Thread starter jabba21
- Start date
Could they compete with Ruger, Colt, Uberti, Cimarron, Pieta, Taylor, etc.? IMO, I doubt it. They can't even compete with Taurus to make an inexpensive DA revolver. I base my last comment on the very poor finish on the S&W 642 I had. I also think the higher end SA revolvers are covered by other manufacturers, can't name them right now.
^Because that was technically produced under the Volcanic Repeating Arms company. While still a part of the S&W history, my question wasn't about how the company began.
I was just curious as to why they don't make any single action revolvers today. To my recollection, it hasn't been too many years ago that they reproduced the Model 3. Did they not sell well? Couldn't compete with other reproductions? Did they just not have any interest in that corner of the market?
I was just curious as to why they don't make any single action revolvers today. To my recollection, it hasn't been too many years ago that they reproduced the Model 3. Did they not sell well? Couldn't compete with other reproductions? Did they just not have any interest in that corner of the market?
Bob Wright
New member
RJay said:
Easier said than done. Remember the Volcanic had no empty case to contend with, as would be the case of a modern replica. The action cycle of a Volcanic was only as long as its short bullet, as the Volcanic took what was termed "rocket ball" ammunition.
S&W did make a single action replica of the Schofield revovler, but its cost was way out of line compared to the Italian clones.
As to a copy of the Single Action Army, why? That's already covered by the Italian imports, plus you can still get a genuine Colt SAA.
Bob Wright
Easier said than done. Remember the Volcanic had no empty case to contend with, as would be the case of a modern replica. The action cycle of a Volcanic was only as long as its short bullet, as the Volcanic took what was termed "rocket ball" ammunition.
S&W did make a single action replica of the Schofield revovler, but its cost was way out of line compared to the Italian clones.
As to a copy of the Single Action Army, why? That's already covered by the Italian imports, plus you can still get a genuine Colt SAA.
Bob Wright
Like I said, I was just curious.
You can still buy a Colt 1911 and a myriad of other copies, but Ruger decided to jump on that ship recently.
You don't think people would be intrigued by the idea of a S&W single action army? Especially since the single action army was it's toughest competitor in their early days.
You can still buy a Colt 1911 and a myriad of other copies, but Ruger decided to jump on that ship recently.
You don't think people would be intrigued by the idea of a S&W single action army? Especially since the single action army was it's toughest competitor in their early days.
aarondhgraham
New member
I refer you to Aaronds Law Number 1,,,
I refer you to Aarond's Law Number 1:
Any time you start a question with why,,,
Stop at the word why and answer, Money,,,
You will be correct in almost every situation.
If they (S&W) thought they could make a profit,,,
They would make a SA revolver.
Besides, with the exception of their hammerless guns,,,
All of them can be fired in SA mode all day long.
Aarond
.
I refer you to Aarond's Law Number 1:
Any time you start a question with why,,,
Stop at the word why and answer, Money,,,
You will be correct in almost every situation.
If they (S&W) thought they could make a profit,,,
They would make a SA revolver.
Besides, with the exception of their hammerless guns,,,
All of them can be fired in SA mode all day long.
Aarond
.
Haha, Aarond wins the thread. 
Usually, he wins all the threads he starts, so this is new territory for him. 
Seriously, though, it's the right answer. A similar question that could be posed (though off-topic for this forum) is "why doesn't S&W produce any of their 3rd Generation semi-auto pistols anymore?" Fact is, those are some of the finest guns of that genre ever produced. But they are gone, unlikely to return.
Some of the best stuff ever is gone, and won't (likely) ever return. I suppose it does make us love the ones we can find even more.
Usually, he wins all the threads he starts, so this is new territory for him. Seriously, though, it's the right answer. A similar question that could be posed (though off-topic for this forum) is "why doesn't S&W produce any of their 3rd Generation semi-auto pistols anymore?" Fact is, those are some of the finest guns of that genre ever produced. But they are gone, unlikely to return.
Some of the best stuff ever is gone, and won't (likely) ever return. I suppose it does make us love the ones we can find even more.
IIRC back in the Days of the Old West shooters quickly decided they prefered Colt to S&W-or Remington. Colt brought the SAA back in the 1950s due to the popularity of Westerns on TV and Ruger meeting the demand for single action revolvers, the Remington and S&W reproductions appeared with the growth of CAS and related shooting activities.
Besides, who would buy an S&W single action with that infernal internal lock?
Besides, who would buy an S&W single action with that infernal internal lock?
Not a bad question at all. I think I would find the answer very interesting.
The short answer I think would be Aarond's - money.
The long answer would be more of a business major (MBA) type of answer which IMhO would be fun to read - I think it would be a history of the trials, tribulations of a 'big gun' in corporate America and how business - stocks and aquisitions and stuff is done. (Maybe like the book 'Barbarians At The Gate'.) To keep it interesting they would have to keep referring back to the machinery S&W was using to make the guns and how the bean counters regarded the guns S&W was making and maybe even how politics influenced the company.
Why they currently do not, I do not know. But, historically they did...some famous ones as a matter of fact. S&W Model 3, S&W Schofield, S&W .44 Russian, etc. They were arguably more advanced than the .45 Colt. S&W did sell some to the U.S. Cavalry, but as the historians I am sure will join this thread to tell us, the Army stayed with the Single Action Army Colt .45.
bedbugbilly
New member
There's a lot of competition out there with other makes and my guess is that they really don't have to? They're selling enough of what they do make? That said though . . . I think that a lot of folks love to shoot DA so that's what they concentrate on. I have mainly shot SA most of my life and as such, pretty much shoot the Smiths I have in SA - they sort of offer the best of "both worlds" to revolver shooters. The same with with the DA Colt DAs that I have. If I could only choose one revolver though - it would probably be a SAA - for me, there's just something about the feel of a SAA.
SW did a reproduction top break. the problem is the price was the same as a freedom arms revolver. As a result it had almost no sales. As a result of that the remaining stock was sent to the Performance Center unit, and given a heavily engraving and a 4,000 dollar price tag.
other problem was that it was not a 100 percent copy. no one really makes a 100 percent copy of those guns.
other problem was that it was not a 100 percent copy. no one really makes a 100 percent copy of those guns.
Dragline45
New member
Not enough demand IMO for them to tool up and start pushing out SA revolvers. Ruger pretty much dominates that part of the market anyways.
I have wanted a SA revolver for a while now, but it is not on the top of my list, I suspect many others are the same way.
I have wanted a SA revolver for a while now, but it is not on the top of my list, I suspect many others are the same way.
Mike Irwin
Staff
In the west, Smith large frames were well regarded and popular.
The problem was, because they were supplying most of their production to Russia, there simply wasn't a lot of spare production capacity for them to become truly widespread in the west.
In other words it was not a case of Colt winning by popular acclaim, it was one of Smith really not putting much effort into the competition. They were being paid in gold ingots by the Russians. Whats not to love about that?
Smith even told the US army to take a hike when they were offered a contact for 8000 guns.
The problem was, because they were supplying most of their production to Russia, there simply wasn't a lot of spare production capacity for them to become truly widespread in the west.
In other words it was not a case of Colt winning by popular acclaim, it was one of Smith really not putting much effort into the competition. They were being paid in gold ingots by the Russians. Whats not to love about that?
Smith even told the US army to take a hike when they were offered a contact for 8000 guns.
I'm not an expert in history or in the industry.
But as I kind of understand it, S&W was the company that really brought double-action revolvers into popularity - it was kind of their thing, so to speak. (Not to be confused with it being their invention.)
That, coupled with the fact that there are a lot of manufacturers already producing single-action revolvers. I can see why they would have no interest in producing them.
Besides, they can't keep up with demand of their existing products as it is.
But as I kind of understand it, S&W was the company that really brought double-action revolvers into popularity - it was kind of their thing, so to speak. (Not to be confused with it being their invention.)
That, coupled with the fact that there are a lot of manufacturers already producing single-action revolvers. I can see why they would have no interest in producing them.
Besides, they can't keep up with demand of their existing products as it is.
Actually, S&W was a bit late in the DA revolver game, not introducing their first until 1880, by which time there was a slew of DA revolvers on the market. Their first swing cylinder "Hand Ejector" revolver didn't come out until 1896, several years after Colt's Model 1889 Navy revolver and several foreign revolvers.
As of this time, S&W is turning out all the guns its plants are capable of making, so taking on a major project to reproduce obsolete guns on the whim of a few hobbyists is not in the cards.
Jim
As of this time, S&W is turning out all the guns its plants are capable of making, so taking on a major project to reproduce obsolete guns on the whim of a few hobbyists is not in the cards.
Jim
Until fairly recently (in the grand scheme of things) Smith & Wesson did offer a S/A only version of the Model 14, 38 Special, target revolver. I remember seeing them in the Shooters Bible and wondering "Who'd want one of those?" 
I was young and foolish in those days.
But that was a standard hand-ejector frame that had been modified for S/A only shooting, not a "cowboy gun."
I was young and foolish in those days.But that was a standard hand-ejector frame that had been modified for S/A only shooting, not a "cowboy gun."