When I was in Basic Training in 1962, I became well acquainted with the terms, "Simulate and Improvise". I learned that one does not need live rounds with which to drill/practice. I also learned that the military abhors idle enlisted men...if not working, drilling, simulating, practicing. In all, any minor difficulties with reaching the hammer or balance would not be a significant issue...everyone in my training company in 1962 adapted to the Garand (even the "lefties"), and its length of pull, no matter their size or arm length.
Schofield
- Thread starter Bucksnort1
- Start date
Mike Irwin
Staff
"When I was in Basic Training in 1962, I became well acquainted with the terms, "Simulate and Improvise"."
Yep. That's great... And only about 100 years too late.
Simulated firing didn't really become a thing in the military until the early 1900s.
Prior to that, virtually no emphasis was placed on simulation, as in dry firing. Troops had some live fire training in basic, and then once or twice a year, and that was it.
That was considered to be more than enough to keep them proficient.
Yep. That's great... And only about 100 years too late.
Simulated firing didn't really become a thing in the military until the early 1900s.
Prior to that, virtually no emphasis was placed on simulation, as in dry firing. Troops had some live fire training in basic, and then once or twice a year, and that was it.
That was considered to be more than enough to keep them proficient.
This thread has bounced around between "Then" and "Now".
When I said the No3 was limited in power, I was referring to generally, in terms of today, as far as it being inferior to the Colt in that area.
We've seen .357 Mag Peacemakers, we have not & won't see .357 Mag break-tops in the old Smith design.
The original post was a "The Schofield is a better design than the Colt" theme, and I was addressing that in saying "nope, it ain't."
And, the Schofield variation was an adaptation of the No3.
The Schofield's latch system was modified with Schofield's version that he developed for military use, which sorta could be said that THOSE pistols (the so-called Schofields) were intended for military applications.
Overall though, the No3 frame size pistols were not initially developed strictly for a military setting.
S&W developed the bigger frames as a logical step to fill a void in their line-up & to use the new cartridge technology, then marketed it for military contracts.
They were not generated solely by the prospect of military use, or created specifically for a military role.
While it had a "better" (one-handed vs two-handed) latch, the Schofield was still a No3 elsewhere & still subject to the same vulnerabilities as the rest of the No3 line.
As such, suggesting that even though "your" pistol bound up, it was OK because everybody was still being actively engaged, probably was little comfort to the trooper left with a substantial percentage of his armament taken out of the game (i.e. his own defensive tools).
Like saying to dead soldiers found with jammed Springfield rifles caused by the old copper-cased ammunition "It's OK, everybody else was still shootin'."
Hammer reach & how the two pistols "hang" in the hand are quite different.
It's been aptly said that the Smith was a more leisurely target pistol, while the Colt was a fightin' gun.
The Colt is a natural in my medium-sized hand, the Smith requires either an awkward too-high grip to keep my thumb in reach of the hammer without shifting, or a more comfortable lower hold that puts my thumb out of hammer reach, necessitating shifting the gun in hand between shots.
The woodpecker hammer on the Smith is also lower & angled such that it's easier to slip off in cocking under pressure, another area where the Colt is superior.
Not to mention the solid firing pin on the Smith vs the easier to replace pinned firing pin on the Colt.
Bust a pin on the Smith, replace the entire hammer.
Bust a pin on the Colt, replace the pin.
Even aside from the fallacy of the constant training idea, yes- you CAN train around deficiencies, but that doesn't make those deficiencies disappear. Nor can repetitive training somehow make a lesser design superior to a better design, in context of the original poster's question.
Denis
When I said the No3 was limited in power, I was referring to generally, in terms of today, as far as it being inferior to the Colt in that area.
We've seen .357 Mag Peacemakers, we have not & won't see .357 Mag break-tops in the old Smith design.
The original post was a "The Schofield is a better design than the Colt" theme, and I was addressing that in saying "nope, it ain't."
And, the Schofield variation was an adaptation of the No3.
The Schofield's latch system was modified with Schofield's version that he developed for military use, which sorta could be said that THOSE pistols (the so-called Schofields) were intended for military applications.
Overall though, the No3 frame size pistols were not initially developed strictly for a military setting.
S&W developed the bigger frames as a logical step to fill a void in their line-up & to use the new cartridge technology, then marketed it for military contracts.
They were not generated solely by the prospect of military use, or created specifically for a military role.
While it had a "better" (one-handed vs two-handed) latch, the Schofield was still a No3 elsewhere & still subject to the same vulnerabilities as the rest of the No3 line.
As such, suggesting that even though "your" pistol bound up, it was OK because everybody was still being actively engaged, probably was little comfort to the trooper left with a substantial percentage of his armament taken out of the game (i.e. his own defensive tools).
Like saying to dead soldiers found with jammed Springfield rifles caused by the old copper-cased ammunition "It's OK, everybody else was still shootin'."
Hammer reach & how the two pistols "hang" in the hand are quite different.
It's been aptly said that the Smith was a more leisurely target pistol, while the Colt was a fightin' gun.
The Colt is a natural in my medium-sized hand, the Smith requires either an awkward too-high grip to keep my thumb in reach of the hammer without shifting, or a more comfortable lower hold that puts my thumb out of hammer reach, necessitating shifting the gun in hand between shots.
The woodpecker hammer on the Smith is also lower & angled such that it's easier to slip off in cocking under pressure, another area where the Colt is superior.
Not to mention the solid firing pin on the Smith vs the easier to replace pinned firing pin on the Colt.
Bust a pin on the Smith, replace the entire hammer.
Bust a pin on the Colt, replace the pin.
Even aside from the fallacy of the constant training idea, yes- you CAN train around deficiencies, but that doesn't make those deficiencies disappear. Nor can repetitive training somehow make a lesser design superior to a better design, in context of the original poster's question.
Denis
Last edited:
They are rare in this neck of the woods. Maybe common among SAS types. I think Bud's revolver was a 44 Russian. I zoomed in on the cases and they are 44 Mag cases. He had to have trimmed them down. So, there are plenty of 44 Russian Target Models around. What's the price of an original 44 Russian Target Model, in good shooting shape, no broken parts, no rust pitting. Does not have to be original finish, lets say, 80% original finish and mechanically excellent. Can I buy one for $500.00?
Nice pictures by the way, great story.
I don't have one of these to examine, but it is my recollection that the load path through the top strap is carried by a pin, and the thin sidewalls of the latching mechanism. Also, given the latching mechanism, a hammer notch, there is a lot of flexibility in the S&W top break. I will continue to categorize the top break mechanism as extremely weak.
I am curious to know, just how many rounds of Elmer Keith reloads can the modern Italian top breaks handle? Keith was shooting a 240 with 17.5 grains of 2400 in the 44 Special. I have shot that in my M624 and it is too much fun for me, but the gun was not damaged. Only a couple of cylinders. I have shot thousands of 240 L 7.5 grains Unique in a Ruger 44 Spl Flattop, never seen an issue.
Last edited:
Driftwood Johnson
New member
In a word, no.
First off, let's get our terms correct. Your friend's revolver is not a Russian model. It is a New Model Number Three. Look at the photo of my New Model #3 and you will see the similarity. 44 Russian is the caliber, not the model. And not to quibble, but as I said earlier, the New Model Number Three Target models were restricted to 38-44 and 32-44 calibers. Your friend's gun is a New Model Number Three with target sights.
Here are some links to similar guns and the actual prices they sold for at auction. The numbers in parentheses are the pre-auction estimates, the bold type is the actual selling price. Click on the photos for a bigger view.
This one is a 44-40, so it went for a bit more than a New Model #3 chambered for 44 Russian would have:
http://www.amoskeagauction.com/105/300.html
This one is a Japanese contract gun, so it commanded a higher price. But read the description to see how less than perfect it is, and still commanded that price.
http://www.amoskeagauction.com/105/496.html
This one is coming up for auction in a couple of weeks, so there is only the auction house estimate of what it will go for. Notice the condition.
http://www.amoskeagauction.com/107/518.html
For any one of these with target sights, expect about a 10% increase in the price.
Sorry, but these are highly sought after guns today. For $500 you would probably get a junker that was only worth stripping it down for parts.
OK, let's not be ridiculous. Nobody ever said that a Top Break could take hot 44 Special Keith type loads. If that is your criteria for strength, we are talking about apples and oranges. If that is your criteria, then of course the Top Breaks are weak. I just object to your use of the word 'extremely'.
In their day, the Schofield could handle a 230 grain bullet over about 28 grains of Black Powder, which would stop any man in his tracks. I will remind you that the US Army decided to throttle back the 45 Colt load from 40 grains to 30 because of the amount of recoil.
The New Model Number Three Frontier Model could handle the 44-40 cartridge with a 200 grain bullet over 40 grains of Black Powder. Again, all respect to Elmer but that is nothing to sneeze at.
Here is the latch mechanism of my New Model Number Three. It is identical to your friends pistol. Pretty much the same with all the S&W Top Breaks with the exception of the Schofield model. You will notice there is a slight arc on the rear of the two frame lugs. The arc is so the latch can pivot to clear the lugs. When the latch is locked, it is snug against the rear curved surface of the lugs.
The thrust of recoil is straight back against the recoil shield of the frame. What tended to happen when these guns were abused, is if the pounding of recoil was too much, the top strap would stretch slightly as the two lugs on the frame pulled back on the latch. That is exactly what happened to that 44 Double Action of mine that I mentioned earlier. When the latch was closed, there was enough play that the entire barrel assembly could wiggle up and down a degree or two. A smith was able to tighten it up for me and now it is as tight as when it left the factory.
Driftwood Johnson
New member
DPris:
Yes, we seem to have veered off on the historical aspects of the #3 Top Breaks vs the modern replicas. Since I only collect the antiques (it is actually not legal for me to buy one of the replicas where I live, but that's another story) clearly my interest is in the historic aspects of the originals.
Yes, I will grant you, the reach to the hammer on most of the #3 Top Breaks is further than with a Colt. That is partially because of Smith's insistence on curving the hammer spur almost straight up, I don't know what was with that. It is also just the geometry of the gun. Yes, when I cock a Colt I can do it without regripping. Recoil lifts the muzzle a bit, putting the hammer spur right under my thumb. With my New Model Number Three or Schofield I have mastered cocking them without regripping, I guess I have just developed the technique. The Russian though, is a whole nother story. That massive knuckle (the pointy part of the grip) requires I regrip, bringing my palm up onto the knuckle in order to reach the hammer. Then I have to regrip again, getting my palm below the knuckle. If I don't and I fire the gun with the knuckle against my palm, it hurts, even with a light recoiling round like 44 Russian. Why is the pointy knuckle there? Because that is what the Russians wanted. Same with the useless trigger spur. That's what they wanted.
But the reduced knuckle of the New Model Number Three, almost the same as a modern K frame, makes for a very pleasant grip.
Yes, you are absolutely correct, there were no 357 Mag Top Breaks. Or 44 Mags either. But my earlier comments about the Schofield and 44 WCF cartridges still hold. Plenty of power for the job at hand.
I will quibble a bit about the #3 Smiths and their usefulness in a military setting. True, S&W only sold about 8,000 Schofields to the Army. But at the same time they were producing about 150,000 (yes 150,000) Russian models for the Russian, Turkish, and Japanese governments. Clearly, the military authorities of those countries must have thought they were pretty good guns.
Can't comment on troopers being caught flat footed if their Smiths jammed up. But I strongly suspect I have fired more rounds through my New Model Number Three than most troopers did through their Schofields in the 1870s. That complicated ejector system has never failed me, and I have never gotten an empty stuck under the ejector. That's one of the nice thing about the nice big rim of the 44 Russian round.
Knock on wood.
Yes, we seem to have veered off on the historical aspects of the #3 Top Breaks vs the modern replicas. Since I only collect the antiques (it is actually not legal for me to buy one of the replicas where I live, but that's another story) clearly my interest is in the historic aspects of the originals.
Yes, I will grant you, the reach to the hammer on most of the #3 Top Breaks is further than with a Colt. That is partially because of Smith's insistence on curving the hammer spur almost straight up, I don't know what was with that. It is also just the geometry of the gun. Yes, when I cock a Colt I can do it without regripping. Recoil lifts the muzzle a bit, putting the hammer spur right under my thumb. With my New Model Number Three or Schofield I have mastered cocking them without regripping, I guess I have just developed the technique. The Russian though, is a whole nother story. That massive knuckle (the pointy part of the grip) requires I regrip, bringing my palm up onto the knuckle in order to reach the hammer. Then I have to regrip again, getting my palm below the knuckle. If I don't and I fire the gun with the knuckle against my palm, it hurts, even with a light recoiling round like 44 Russian. Why is the pointy knuckle there? Because that is what the Russians wanted. Same with the useless trigger spur. That's what they wanted.
But the reduced knuckle of the New Model Number Three, almost the same as a modern K frame, makes for a very pleasant grip.
Yes, you are absolutely correct, there were no 357 Mag Top Breaks. Or 44 Mags either. But my earlier comments about the Schofield and 44 WCF cartridges still hold. Plenty of power for the job at hand.
I will quibble a bit about the #3 Smiths and their usefulness in a military setting. True, S&W only sold about 8,000 Schofields to the Army. But at the same time they were producing about 150,000 (yes 150,000) Russian models for the Russian, Turkish, and Japanese governments. Clearly, the military authorities of those countries must have thought they were pretty good guns.
Can't comment on troopers being caught flat footed if their Smiths jammed up. But I strongly suspect I have fired more rounds through my New Model Number Three than most troopers did through their Schofields in the 1870s. That complicated ejector system has never failed me, and I have never gotten an empty stuck under the ejector. That's one of the nice thing about the nice big rim of the 44 Russian round.
Knock on wood.
DJ,
I've never had an original No3, but as I said I've had all repro barrel lengths available in those three calibers, and I've worked with Schofields, the "standard" No3 latch, the Russian, and even the short-run Smith & Wesson of modern times.
Had I wanted to, I could probably have developed a more amenable grip/hold/cocking method, as you have, but I didn't want to.
I like the guns & I hope to end up with another short-barreled one to actually keep someday.
But it'll just be to have a sample of a classic, not because I think it's a better design than the Colt.
My preference would be a shorter barrel largely because the full-length No3 barrels feel much more front-heavy in my hand than a comparable Colt 7.5-incher.
I would not consider carrying a No3 anywhere, because of the awkward grip, the awkward cocking, the slip-off hammer spur, and the ejector binding that I've experienced.
I would carry (and have carried) a Colt in the wilds with full confidence in it to function correctly and to fit my hand in the areas I consider important (grip, hammer reach, etc.).
Foreign military acceptance & orders for the Smiths could be considered either a point in your favor, or a point against.
The Russians with their ungainly version, for example, doesn't speak too highly of their expertise in sidearm choices, and they really went downhill when they followed that with the Nagant.
The Smith is just a...clunky gun, in my hands.
Classic, but clunky.
Denis
I've never had an original No3, but as I said I've had all repro barrel lengths available in those three calibers, and I've worked with Schofields, the "standard" No3 latch, the Russian, and even the short-run Smith & Wesson of modern times.
Had I wanted to, I could probably have developed a more amenable grip/hold/cocking method, as you have, but I didn't want to.
I like the guns & I hope to end up with another short-barreled one to actually keep someday.
But it'll just be to have a sample of a classic, not because I think it's a better design than the Colt.
My preference would be a shorter barrel largely because the full-length No3 barrels feel much more front-heavy in my hand than a comparable Colt 7.5-incher.
I would not consider carrying a No3 anywhere, because of the awkward grip, the awkward cocking, the slip-off hammer spur, and the ejector binding that I've experienced.
I would carry (and have carried) a Colt in the wilds with full confidence in it to function correctly and to fit my hand in the areas I consider important (grip, hammer reach, etc.).
Foreign military acceptance & orders for the Smiths could be considered either a point in your favor, or a point against.
The Russians with their ungainly version, for example, doesn't speak too highly of their expertise in sidearm choices, and they really went downhill when they followed that with the Nagant.
The Smith is just a...clunky gun, in my hands.
Classic, but clunky.
Denis
.45
Note that the picture of the box of Frankford Arsenal.45 Colts says "12 Cartridges" not 12 Calibers.
.45 Schofield. I was under the impression that "Schofield" was the name of a type of revolver and that the cartridge is the .45 S&W. Is that not correct?
Pete
.44 Russian is the cartridge, not the caliber. The caliber is .430.
Note that the picture of the box of Frankford Arsenal.45 Colts says "12 Cartridges" not 12 Calibers.
.45 Schofield. I was under the impression that "Schofield" was the name of a type of revolver and that the cartridge is the .45 S&W. Is that not correct?
Pete
Mike Irwin
Staff
"I will quibble a bit about the #3 Smiths and their usefulness in a military setting. True, S&W only sold about 8,000 Schofields to the Army. But at the same time they were producing about 150,000 (yes 150,000) Russian models for the Russian, Turkish, and Japanese governments. Clearly, the military authorities of those countries must have thought they were pretty good guns."
The Russian guns saw service all the way through the Russian civil war (with a few reports of them being seen in the early days of their involvement during the German invasion), and Japanese contract guns were encountered throughout the war.
"True, S&W only sold about 8,000 Schofields to the Army."
Around 1877-1878 the Army went back to S&W to order several thousand of the New Model No. 3. The Army apparently wanted a significant discount on the price of the guns, and supposedly would only offer payment after the last of the guns was delivered, and with a nebulous "offer" that bigger orders might be forthcoming.
S&W, operating at pretty much 100% capacity supplying guns to the Russians, Turks, and Japanese, who were paying in gold bars, told the Army to go fornicate itself with an iron stick.
The Russian guns saw service all the way through the Russian civil war (with a few reports of them being seen in the early days of their involvement during the German invasion), and Japanese contract guns were encountered throughout the war.
"True, S&W only sold about 8,000 Schofields to the Army."
Around 1877-1878 the Army went back to S&W to order several thousand of the New Model No. 3. The Army apparently wanted a significant discount on the price of the guns, and supposedly would only offer payment after the last of the guns was delivered, and with a nebulous "offer" that bigger orders might be forthcoming.
S&W, operating at pretty much 100% capacity supplying guns to the Russians, Turks, and Japanese, who were paying in gold bars, told the Army to go fornicate itself with an iron stick.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Regarding Smith vs Colt durability, I've not read it for years, but the initial report from the Army, primarily the cavalry, was that both firearms performed admirably in the hands of troops.
Both had issues, both had strong points.
Relative handling characteristics were considered to be a wash, IIRC, with the Colt pointing more naturally but the relative muzzle heaviness of the S&W giving a more stable shooting platform from a moving horse.
Troops did find the recoil of the full-power loads in the Colt to be more objectionable than the S&W.
The S&W was found to be easier to reload, especially on horseback (not surprising).
Both had issues, both had strong points.
Relative handling characteristics were considered to be a wash, IIRC, with the Colt pointing more naturally but the relative muzzle heaviness of the S&W giving a more stable shooting platform from a moving horse.
Troops did find the recoil of the full-power loads in the Colt to be more objectionable than the S&W.
The S&W was found to be easier to reload, especially on horseback (not surprising).
Driftwood Johnson
New member
Oh my goodness, you are even pickier than me. OK, how about 'the revolver is chambered for the 44 Russian cartridge'. Is that better?
And if we are going to be that picky, the caliber is .429, not .430. Starting way back with the 44 Russian, rifling groove diameter was .429. And it is still .429 for the Russian cartridge's descendants, 44 Special and 44 Magnum. One shooter I know likes to call that family the 44 Russian, 44 Russian Long, and 44 Russian Extra Long.
*******
The 45 Schofield round has gone under several names over its lifetime. The Army called it Revolver Ball Cartridge, Caliber .45, M1875. This version carried a 230 grain hollow base lead bullet over 28 grains of FFg powder with an OAL of 1.438. This version was copper cased with folded rim construction and Benet inside priming. They looked like rimfires on the outside. See the photo below.
The Army called a Boxer primed version with the same OAL and 230 grain bullet and 28 grains of FFg Revolver Ball Cartridge, Caliber .45, M1882 and M1890.
A slightly shorter round with an OAL of 1.42 was called Revolver Ball Cartridge, Caliber .45 M1896. Same powder and bullet specifications.
You are correct, in their book Smith and Wesson 1857 - 1945, Roy Jinks and Robert J Neal call the cartridge 45 S&W. The cartridge has also been known as 45 S&W Schofield at different times.
However these days it is usually referred to simply as 45 Schofield. That is what the labels on modern ammo produced by the likes of Blackhills Ammunition and Ultramax have printed on them. Yeah, Midway calls the ammo 45 S&W Schofield, but trust me, most shooters simply refer to it as 45 Schofield.
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/425830/black-hills-cowboy-action-ammunition-45-s-and-w-schofield-230-grain-lead-flat-nose-box-of-50?cm_vc=ProductFinding
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/874566/ultramax-cowboy-action-ammunition-45-s-and-w-schofield-230-grain-lead-flat-nose-box-of-50?cm_vc=ProductFinding
In this photo, the cartridge second from the right is the original configuration of the 45 Schofield cartridge, the M1875. It is copper cased, and the two crimps near the rim hold the anvil plate of the inside priming in place. The copper cased round next to it is out of that box of 45 Colts in an earlier photo. This round too is copper cased and Benet primed. The two rounds flanking the old rounds are modern versions of 45 Colt and 45 Schofield. You can see how much wider the modern Schofield rim is, nominally .520, rather than the .512 rim of the modern 45 Colt. Yeah, these are my reloads, and that funny squat bullet in the modern 45 Schofield is a 200 grain Black Powder bullet that I designed.
Here is a photo of modern 45 Schofield headstamps, brass made by Starline. I am not aware of anybody else making 45 Schofield brass these days. The copper cased Benet primed round is at the bottom. Looks like a rimfire, don't it?
kilimanjaro
New member
Custer used a Schofield in 44 Russian. Other than that, won't comment, haven't ever fired one. I sure like my Webley revolvers, though.
To me, the SAA is a left-handed design. Just doesn't do it for me.
To me, the SAA is a left-handed design. Just doesn't do it for me.
Jim Watson
New member
Doubt that. S&W didn't make the Schofield in .44 Russian.
I think the "left handed" design of the SAA is misunderstood.
I think the "left handed" design of the SAA is misunderstood.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"I think the "left handed" design of the SAA is misunderstood."
I think Colt's logic for the loading gate/ejector location is pretty, well... logical.
They anticipated that most shooters, being right handed, would move the gun to their left hand to allow their strong hand, the right hand, the task of manipulating the shells into the chambers.
I think Colt's logic for the loading gate/ejector location is pretty, well... logical.
They anticipated that most shooters, being right handed, would move the gun to their left hand to allow their strong hand, the right hand, the task of manipulating the shells into the chambers.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Q.: The Benet primed cartridge.....the firing pin hits the center?? Would you have a fired case to show? Just curious is all.
Pete"
Yes. It was an internally primed centerfire cartridge. Internally primed cases were developed for use with drawn copper cases, which didn't really have the strength needed to support either a Boxer or Berdan primer.
There were a number of different internally primed center-fire systems developed around this time, but the Benet system was developed by Col. Steven Benet of Frankford Arsenal, so it had an inside track on adoption. The only other one to really gain any traction was the Martin, which was also loaded (more or less experimentally) for a time by Frankford Arsenal.
This page has some more information on the Benet, Martin, and other types of primer systems.
http://milpas.cc/rifles/ZFiles/Misc/Cartridge Primers/Cartridge Primers.html#Benet--Internal
Pete"
Yes. It was an internally primed centerfire cartridge. Internally primed cases were developed for use with drawn copper cases, which didn't really have the strength needed to support either a Boxer or Berdan primer.
There were a number of different internally primed center-fire systems developed around this time, but the Benet system was developed by Col. Steven Benet of Frankford Arsenal, so it had an inside track on adoption. The only other one to really gain any traction was the Martin, which was also loaded (more or less experimentally) for a time by Frankford Arsenal.
This page has some more information on the Benet, Martin, and other types of primer systems.
http://milpas.cc/rifles/ZFiles/Misc/Cartridge Primers/Cartridge Primers.html#Benet--Internal
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Jim has it, the Schofield was never chambered in .44 Russian."
I once had a counter money at my preferred gunstore tell me that it was NOT the .44 Russian, it was the .Forty FIVE Russian, and then proceeded to argue with me about it.
While holding a repop Smith No. 3 chambered for...
.44 Russian.
Not a particularly bright one, that boy. And that was the only time I ever saw him behind the counter.
I once had a counter money at my preferred gunstore tell me that it was NOT the .44 Russian, it was the .Forty FIVE Russian, and then proceeded to argue with me about it.
While holding a repop Smith No. 3 chambered for...
.44 Russian.
Not a particularly bright one, that boy. And that was the only time I ever saw him behind the counter.