Thinking about some 19th Century revolvers

[Driftwood Johnson]

Yes, while the reloading function of the MH was no better than a Colt SAA, the difference was that it could be unloaded faster, nearly as fast as a S&W Model 3, but couldn't be reloaded as fast. Then, the tradeoff of a slower reload than the S&W was a stronger design, one nearly as strong as the Colt.

I don't know what makes you think the Merwin design is stronger than the S&W Top Break design. I certainly would not say that.

Of course, the frame of a solid frame revolver like a Colt is going to be stronger than any jointed frame, such as the S&W or the MH. But that is only frame strength. Ultimately it is the cylinder that must contain the pressure of the cartridge firing, and frame strength has nothing to do with that. Frame strength relates to the ability of the gun to absorb the concussion of recoil without stretching.

With any Top Break design you have the possibility of the frame stretching from recoil, sometimes causing the latch to have problems mating up properly. I have placed an arrow where the mismatch can happen.

But the early Merwins came in an open top configuration. There is no way an Open Top frame is stronger than a Top Break. What tends to happen is over time the barrel bends down from the force of the bullet entering the forcing cone and traveling down the barrel. I can tell you for a fact that is exactly what has happened over time to my Pocket Army 2nd Model, because the barrel/cylinder gap is very large, on the order of .012 or so if I recall correctly. the effect of the barrel bending down is to open up the barrel cylinder gap. You can't see it by eye, but measuring the b/c gap confirms it. Since I only shoot Black Powder loads in this gun, and not very often, I am not too concerned about the wide b/c gap. I will tell you though that I had a smith open up the cylinder throats because they were very tight, and I did not want to be creating too much pressure in the cylinder.

Recognizing the weakness of the Open Top design, Merwin Hulbert eventually added a Top Strap. Now there were two joints, not just one. The top strap prevented the barrel from bending down. However the two piece frame and barrel assembly was still susceptible to stretching.

However, regarding the inherent strength of the steel used in the cylinder, I would put my money on a S&W Top Break over a Merwin Hulbert any day of the week, because I believe S&W was using the best steel available at the time. I have less confidence in the steel that Hopkins and Allen was able to obtain for the Merwin Hulbert. This is a photo of one of my Merwing Hulberts before I owned it. The cylinder split wide open who knows where the top strap wound up. Later, a new, custom cylinder was fabricated from modern steel, and a new top strap was fabricated and welded on.

When I bought that Merwin, the previous owner gave me the blown up cylinder along with it. Believe what you want about the myths of the Merwin Hulbert, but I do not believe they were stronger than a S&W Top Break.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"I would put my money on a S&W Top Break over a Merwin Hulbert any day of the week, because I believe S&W was using the best steel available at the time."

You sure that either S&W or M&H were actually using steel at the time and not ductile wrought iron as was the common with the Colt?

Steel was still damned expensive in the United States in the 1870s and 1880s as it took awhile for Carnegie to expand the Bessemer process to a point where steel became cheaper.

The grain structure in the metal of that blown cylinder looks more like wrought iron than steel.


Remember that in the early Hand Ejectors S&W had problems with the cylinder bolt enlarging the bolt stop holes, so they lined the holes with steel shims until they transitioned to all steel cylinders with the more widespread introduction of smokeless powder.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

You sure that either S&W or M&H were actually using steel at the time and not ductile wrought iron as was the common with the Colt?

By mid 1883 Colt was using transitional low/medium carbon type steels for frames and cylinders. I find it hard to believe that S&W, just a little bit further up the Connecticut River, could not obtain the same materials.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Remember, the S&W No. 3s were made from what, 1868 until the mid-1890s, and were cataloged until 1908.

That's a wide age range.

As for obtaining the same materials, yes, they certainly could have.

But that's not the pertinent question.

The question is when did they switch to steel for frame and cylinder production?

Supica and Nahaus are mute on the subject, and I've not had a chance to thoroughly peruse my Jinks books.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Admittedly, information about the specific metals S&W used for their 19th Century revolvers is going to be hard to find.

The only reference I have been able to find about materials used in Top Break Smiths is in Supica and Nahas. Under the 1st Model Schofield they mention the frame was iron. Under the 2nd Model Schofield they mention the frame is steel. That is all they mention, the materials for the frames on the 1st and 2nd Model Schofields. No mention of what the cylinders were made from.

The 1st Model Schofield was made in 1875, the 2nd model was made 1876-1877.

On the other hand, Jerry Kuhnhausen has documented the metals Colt was using very well. He gives a pretty thorough run down in his book The Colt Single Action Revolvers, A Shop Manual, Volumes 1&2. Specific dates and serial numbers when different materials appeared.

Yes, my statement about S&W using the same metals in Springfield that Colt was using in Hartford is a bit of a stretch, but it seems logical to me.

I would be very interested in anything Jinks has to say on the subject.

Just as sketchy is when S&W said it was OK to use Smokeless powder in their revolvers. Colt is very specific about the date of 1900. S&W, not so. I have a couple of reprints of early 20th Century S&W catalogs that waffle on the subject.