I wish someone made a Merlin Hulbert repro but it would be impossible due to the hand fit and finish needed to make one. The cylinder on the real ones have a suction action due to being fitted so superbly. I have read a modern repro would cost several thousand dollars so it will never happen, much like a new Colt python.
There was an outfit claiming to be tooling up to make M&H revolvers, but they got no further than some 3D modeling, and eventually faded away.
You'd think with investment casting and CNC they'd be able to do it. But I have heard there is no way to equal the hand fitting with such machines, I don't know.
I'd love one of the "Army model" ones with the "skull crushed" grip and black stocks and chrome plating!! Those looks SO good!! I wish Uberti, Pietta, Pedersoli, Ardessa, Investarms, Euroarms, SOMEBODY ANYBODY would come out with a repro for under $1500 that was well made quality wise and as authentic as possible. I'd buy one in a heartbeat!!
Howdy Again
Yes, there was an outfit a few years ago that was attempting to make a reproduction of the Merwin Hulbert revolvers. Yes, they did not get much further than making up 3D models in the computer and posting renderings of the 3D models on several gun boards. They did actually get as far as making up some parts, and showing them at some big gun shows to drum up some business. The problem was they were underfunded. It takes A LOT of money to start up a business and bring out a completely new product. They were seriously underfunded, so they took deposits on prospective orders to move the project forward. When it eventually went bust, it looked like a lot of excited, prospective customers were going to lose their money. Eventually the debt was bought by another company, and the deposits were repaid, but the project stalled there.
I suppose since I own a few of them, I have the luxury of debunking the myths about the Merwin Hulbert. Most of the claptrap about how precise they were, and how nobody else could make one was just that. Claptrap. Baloney. These myths get passed on because unlike Colt, and S&W, and Winchester, and any other gun company you can name, there is only one authoritative book published on the subject, The Story of Merwin Hulbert & Co. Firearms, by Art Phelps.
In his book, Phelps describes how incredibly precise and advanced the MH design was, and since he was the only one standing in bully pulpit, nobody has contradicted him, instead the myths he started get repeated over and over again until everyone and their brother believes them and repeats them to anybody who will listen.
The simple fact is, Merwin came up with the unusual design of rotating the barrel and pulling it forward to reload because Smith & Wesson controlled all the patents for Top Breaks at the time. So Merwin had to come up with a different system if he was going to sell guns.
Regarding that business about the suction of the cylinder, all it is is the center hole in the cylinder was toleranced very tightly to the arbor it rode on. No big deal, you just tolerance the hole so it is about .001 larger in diameter than the arbor. Then if you quickly open the gun, and let go of the barrel, the suction will try to pull the cylinder and barrel back again. Big deal! It only happens because nobody else tried to make such a crazy design. I have three of them, and the 'suction' feature is gone on two of them, because over time the arbor and the hole have worn enough so the fit is not so tight anymore. On one, the 'suction' feature is still there a little bit, because the gun is not quite so worn.
Same with the 'incredible precision' of the rotating joint between the frame and the barrel. All it took was some clever fixturing, so the joints could be cut by rotating the parts around the center of the cylinder axis. Very clever, yes, but not really earthshaking. It's just because nobody else was doing it that it gets so much attention.
Stop and think about it for a moment. Who was actually making these revolver? Hopkins and Allen, who were known for inexpensive, relatively crude firearms. If an outfit like Hopkins and Allen could make these guns, just how precise could they have been? I have always maintained that if S&W had been interested, they could have made the MH design with their eyes closed. They just weren't interested, because they already had a better mouse trap. By the way, if you open up the sideplate of a single action MH, and compare the mechanism to the mechanism of a S&W of the same time period, you will be amazed that they were identical in design and function. But the workmanship was much better inside the S&W gun than the MH.
Which gets me to the last point, and why I think S&W was making a better gun, hands down than Merwin Hulbert. Everybody always says how clever the MH system was for opening the gun and dumping the empties. What they neglect to tell you is you cannot reload the gun while it is open. Absolutely cannot be done because of the 'extractor ring' that pulls the empties out of the chambers. Nobody mentions that to reload you have to close the gun and reload one chamber at a time through a loading gate, not much different than a Colt. Whereas with a Smith, you break it open, dump out the empties, and reload while the gun is still open, then snap it closed to keep shooting.
Funny how nobody ever mentions that.
Don't get me wrong, the Merwin Hulbert is a fascinating revolver, and I am extremely lucky to own three of them, but don't believe the myths that Art Phelps perpetrated about them.
The bottom line is, the Merwin Hulberts were an interesting design, but there simply is not enough demand to be producing them again. If there were, you can bet they would be expensive. Uberti reproductions of S&W #3 revolvers go for a tad more than $1000. Do you think anybody could make a niche revolver like the MH for less?
