The British choice of weapons

Hello, Mikthestick. I'm going to take a differen't view on this..An alexander Henry dropping block rifle has the same basic action as the American Sharps we over here are so enamored with..However, IMHO, the Henry is like a Rolls, compared to a Chevy. These were hand built, finely finished, engraved, with some of the most accurate barrels available at that time. I have an original
.45 Webley Kaufman revolver (1880..still in basic time-frame)..with a smoothness to it's double action, that rivels my best modern Smith & Wessons.
I believe our traveler would be well served with these (British sportsmen hunted the globe with basically the same armament).
He might have purchased a Winchester 76'..possibly a .50-90..these were popular in India (cat guns).
 
In Britain we don't have the same access to gun information as you do so forgive me. I know about guns but, did not know Henry made many rifles good or bad, I thought it was his rifling that went with the Martini.

I have been researching S&W break open revolvers, overall I think the S&W catch is better than the Schofield version and not as flimsy as I thought. I have very little info on the Webley Kaufman. its barrel latch seems like an improved pryse. My info says its .45 so I think it must use the Adams round. I thought the US produced 44/45 Bulldog and perhaps 442 RIC but the problem then as now would be ammunition.

A British officer would likely prefer an American long gun. They got beaten at Isandulwana because to save money they used brass foil cartridges with iron bases. Americans used extruded brass. A good enough reason to buy all American.
 
Henry is regarded by many in the US as sorta the "father" of the SUCCESSFUL lever-action rifle.
His design gave birth to the original Winchester company.

As far as the S&W latches go, I prefer the Schofield.

The standrard latch on the topstrap requires two hands to open the revolver, the Schofield latch on the lower frame only requires one.
Denis
 
Schofield made $3000 so about 6000 got made. I think his latch looks stronger but needing two hands might be safer. S&W made many more thousands with their latch although most seem to have been in 38. Does anyone out there think the S&W is better than a colt.
 
The S&W large-framed No. 3's only superiority, in my estimation, was its quicker loading & unloading.
Otherwise, it didn't balance like the Colt, the grip configuration was not as "good", and it wasn't as handy in working the hammer.
Denis
 
on a side note, the most popular handgun for pistol shooting competitionsin the 1800s was the sw top break chambered in 44 russian, not withstanding that "odd" feel of how it feels in the hand.
 
I have read the US army test of the colt Vs S&W and Remington. If you drop the hammer between the chambers on a colt does it lock the cylinder like the S&W. If it does then I feel it would be safe to carry 6 in a cross draw holster. If you can't settle an argument with 5/6 rounds speed of reloading won't make much difference. At the little bighorn Custer's men had nothing to hide behind when reloading except perhaps dead horses. 10 seconds saved on ejection would hardly have effected the outcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top