Which handgun replica

[mikthestick]

If you read the 1872 tests when the US adopted the Colt 45 I think few of you would buy anything but a Colt and that would not be a mistake. BUT

What don't the US army tests tell you, well quite a lot actually. The Colt shot harder than the Remington or the S&W. Then the government adopted the S&W lighter loaded cartridge, and Colt downloaded their cartridge.

The Colt performed best in the rust tests, but all of the guns had to be cleaned up a bit to get them to work. No firearm issued to the laziest soldiers in the world would be allowed to get into the conditions these guns were in. The S&W had more working parts (more to go wrong) perhaps requiring a bit more maintenance. If the firearms on test had been given to a gunsmith for an hour I feel sure they all would have performed well.

I wonder what might have happened if all the guns had just been fired until one malfunctioned first (note the malfunction), then carry on (if possible) until in an overheat condition. My guess is the S&W would overheat first due to faster firing in spite of the lower gunpowder load producing less heat. It is also possible the S&W would gum up with black powder residue fastest as it has more working parts to be affected. The one thing about the S&W (model 3) that is not good is the sight, these may have affected accuracy during tests however a trip to the gunsmith and that can be made to go away. The Schofield latching system is meant to be an improvement, I could argue that it may be for cavalry but not for infantry. My preference is for the standard latch S&W Model 3 firing the Russian cartridge. There is as far as I can see no spring to make the latch want to stay forward, perhaps it could be made to open accidentally.

Imagine if the S&W had been adopted, Colts first double action revolver was a disaster to use (not reflected by sales figures). S&W DA revolver were available in 1881 and as far as I know were pretty good. The 1881 version could have been adopted as a new or limited standard, never needing to be replaced by the 38 Colt. Therefore crazy Philipinos would have had a hard time and the 1911 may never have been born.

If I'm making a point it is this, there is nothing quite like a Colt and a Colt 45 in particular. For those of you who do cowboy shooting competitions, there is no need for you to feel that to be the best you need a Colt because something else might let you down.

I have started with facts and strayed into fantasy, so you think I prefer a S&W Model 3, YES, but only just. If I had been around 1880 I would have not known Merwin & Hulbert would go bust, there revolvers though less well known are excellent. Nobody is making replicas yet.

 

[mikthestick]

126 views no response

So I thought I would give another reason not to choose the colt 45 (unless you use the army cartridge) RECOIL.
I found it hard to get accurate weights of revolvers, so the following figures are ball park figures.
A typical S&W 38 has 3.4ft/lbs recoil
A Schofield S&W (6.5" barrel) has 7.4ft/lbs recoil
A Colt 45 (7.5" barrel has) 7.72ftlbs with the government cartridge 14.98ftlbs with the 40gr powder load and 12.81ftlbs with 35gr powder.
My figures may be inaccurate but the point is the full load Colt 45 is essentially a Magnum round. Don't think many folks would choose that for a cowboy shooting contest

 

[Jim Watson]

For cowboy target shooting, no.
But the Army wasn't playing cowboy, they wanted a substantial sidearm in an era when shooting the horse was nearly as good as shooting the rider.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

My figures may be inaccurate but the point is the full load Colt 45 is essentially a Magnum round. Don't think many folks would choose that for a cowboy shooting contest

Actually, my usual CAS load is a 45 Colt case stuffed full of FFg Black Powder under a 250 grain bullet. Yes, I am a bit unusual, but I am not alone. Clearly I do not compete with the shooters who shoot 38 Specials down loaded to 32 power, but I am not the only one who shoots Frontier Cartridge Duelist with fully loaded 45s. Frankly, a 45 Colt stuffed full of powder is not a magnum load. It is stout, but it is not a magnum load. My 357 Mags recoil more than a 45 Colt stuffed with Black Powder, and a full power 44 Mag certainly has much more recoil. The recoil of a fully loaded 45 Colt is nothing to sneeze at, but it is completely manageable, even when shooting with one hand. I do not have a death grip on the gun, instead I curl my pinky under the grip, and allow the grip to rotate in my hand in recoil. It is really quite pleasant and I can shoot my 2nd Gen Colts this way all day long.

In point of fact, modern solid head brass does not have the same case capacity as the original folded head 45 Colt brass or the later Balloon Head brass. It takes quite a bit of compression to stuff 40 grains of powder into modern cases. Depending on the brand of powder, I usually stuff about 35 grains in under the 250 grain soft lead bullet and compress it by about 1/8" when the bullet is seated. Still, 35 grains is a very respectable load, and standing nearby you probably could not tell that there is not 40 grains under the bullet.

I wonder what might have happened if all the guns had just been fired until one malfunctioned first (note the malfunction), then carry on (if possible) until in an overheat condition. My guess is the S&W would overheat first due to faster firing in spite of the lower gunpowder load producing less heat. It is also possible the S&W would gum up with black powder residue fastest as it has more working parts to be affected.

I am lucky enough to own several original S&W large frame Top Break revolvers. A 2nd Model Russian, a first Model Schofield, a New Model Number Three, and two Double Action 44s. Smiths have gotten a bad rap for years over being more delicate than a Colt and being subject to breakdown. It simply is not true. If you open up any #3 Smith, you will find that the parts are robust, and there are not significantly more parts in the action than there are in a Colt. Here is the action of my Russian at full cock. You can see the hammer, hand, trigger, mainspring, and trigger spring. The only part not visible is the bolt. Not counting springs, the count is four moving parts, hammer, hand, trigger, and bolt. The exact same number of moving parts inside a Colt.

For comparison, here are the analogous parts from a Colt.

But when the Army tested the Schofield against the Colt, their conclusion was the Smith was more delicate and more likely to breakdown. Hogwash! You want to talk about delicate parts, take a look at this broken handspring and bolt from one of my Colts. The broken spring is a typical failure, that spring is particularly prone to break exactly as this one did. The broken bolt is somewhat unusual, but if you want to talk about a delicate part, there it is. The leg broke off because that portion of a Colt bolt is a spring, it flexes sideways every time the hammer falls and the wedge pushes it sideways. Notice how the part sheared right off around the pivot hole. Nothing that delicate inside a Smith.

The reason revolvers 'gum up' when fired with Black Powder is because dry fouling blasted out of the barrel/cylinder gap manages to work its way down to where the cylinder revolves around its pin. The fouling causes the cylinder to bind. Nothing to do with the parts in the action. By the time S&W came out with the #3 American they had been designing revolvers for over ten years. They knew how to make a revolver that would not bind up from fouling. Here are three detail photos of my New Model Number Three. This first photo shows the gas collar pressed into the front of the cylinder.

The next photo shows the relationship of the cylinder to the arbor pressed into the barrel assembly. The extractor rod with its spring fits inside the hollow arbor. Notice the helical groove cut into the front of the arbor. More about that in a moment.

Here is the assembled gun. Notice how the collar at the front of the cylinder rubs against the frame horizontally removed from the barrel/cylinder gap. Any Black Powder revolver needed that horizontal separation to keep fouling blasted out of the gap from being deposited directly onto the cylinder pin or arbor. Colts had a similar arrangement. With my Black Powder loads with plenty of soft bullet lube on the bullet, these design features allow me to shoot an old Smith all day long without it binding.

It must be said at this point, that modern replicas of the Schofield and Russian do not fare particularly well with Black Powder. That is because the modern revolvers have been chambered for longer cartridges such as 45 Colt. The longer cartridge required a longer cylinder. But not wanting to grow the frame, Uberti has shortened the cylinder bushing so the cylinder would fit into a frame approximately the same size as the originals. The upshot is that the shortened collar does not have enough horizontal separation from the B/C gap to adequately shield the arbor from fouling blasted out of the gap.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Me again. Had to start another post to show more photos.

Here is the latch of my New Model Number Three.

The Schofield latch was an anomaly. It was designed so a trooper could open the latch with one hand and open the gun by brushing the barrel against his leg. At least that is what all the books say. I do not find it that easy, it usually takes me two hands to open my Schofield. But you are correct that the latch used on all the other #3 Smiths will not pop open by itself. A strong spring keeps the latch in the down position.

While you are looking at the latch, that is the typical rear sight of a #3 built onto the latch. Yes, the front sight of a Smith Top Break was very fine, and it could be difficult to see. But have you ever tried sighting a 1st Gen Colt with the original narrow V groove? This photo shows the squared off rear sight of a 2nd Gen Colt compared to the teeny V groove of a 1st Gen.

Imagine if the S&W had been adopted, Colts first double action revolver was a disaster to use (not reflected by sales figures). S&W DA revolver were available in 1881 and as far as I know were pretty good. The 1881 version could have been adopted as a new or limited standard, never needing to be replaced by the 38 Colt. Therefore crazy Philipinos would have had a hard time and the 1911 may never have been born.

Oh, the 1911 would have been born. It was inevitable.

Here is my pair of Double Action 44s. The one on top is a target model, the one at the bottom is a standard model. At this point, it needs to be said that the 44 Russian Cartridge, which was the standard chambering of the Russian Model, DA44, and New Model Number Three, was not a very powerful cartridge. It simply did not hold a lot of powder.

This photo may be instructive. Left to right, the cartridges pictured are 44-40, 44 Special, 44 Russian, 44 American, 44 Henry Rim Fire, 45 Schofield, and 45 Colt. Since these are all Black Powder cartridges, the overall size of the cartridge is directly related to how powerful it is. My own 44 Russian loads carry a 200 grain bullet over about 19.5 grains of FFg powder. That's all that will fit in. Quite a bit less powder than the 35 or so grains I stuff into a 44-40 or 45 Colt. Fact is, the 44 Russian is a very mild mannered cartridge, particularly in a heavy gun like a Smith #3. Not really a whole lot more powerful that the original 38 Specials that carried somewhere around 15 grains of powder. A Frontier Model chambered for 44-40 would be a formidable weapon, but far more of them were chambered for 44 Russian.

For those of you who do cowboy shooting competitions, there is no need for you to feel that to be the best you need a Colt because something else might let you down.

Far be it for me, an avid S&W collector, to say that Colts have an advantage. But in one handed, single action shooting they do. For some reason, the hammer spur of all the #3 Top Breaks, the American, Russian, Schofield, New Model Number Three, and Double Action 44 curve up. Couple that with the fact that the reach to the hammer spur is longer on a #3 than it is with a SAA. The bottom line is, at least for me, it is more awkward shooting a #3 than it is shooting a SAA. With the Colt, my thumb automatically finds the hammer spur. I have to reach for it with a Smith. Of all of them, I find the Russian to be the most awkward of all to shoot. I simply cannot reach the hammer spur without shifting my grip up so that I can reach the hammer spur. But after cocking the gun I have to regrip again, to get my hand below the big hump on the frame, or it hurts when I fire and the hump digs into my palm. Even with the pipsqueak 44 Russian cartridge.

I have started with facts and strayed into fantasy, so you think I prefer a S&W Model 3, YES, but only just. If I had been around 1880 I would have not known Merwin & Hulbert would go bust, there revolvers though less well known are excellent. Nobody is making replicas yet.

And most likely nobody will. Since you mentioned the Merwin Hulbert, I thought I would chime in about them too. Certainly a unique gun. However all the recent hype about how incredibly precise the machining had to be to make them work is probably the result of everything Art Phelps said in his book, 'The Story of Merwin, Hulbert & Company Firearms'. The simple fact is, the machining required to make a Top Break S&W was every bit as precise as the machining required to make a Merwin Hulbert. And Smiths had it all over the MH when it came time to reload. Yes, you pop the gun open and the empties all fall out. But to reload you then have to close the gun and load the rounds one at a time through a loading gate, not much different than with a Colt. With a Smith, you pop it open, dump out the empties, then while it is still open you pop in six more rounds.

 

[mikthestick]

A very big THANK YOU

For the photos you posted. I am a gun enthusiast in the UK with more knowledge than experience. I have never seen photos of the detail you have provided and appreciate the effort required to post them.

I also appreciate your views on these three guns. Taking into account your views and experience, I think the New model 3 in 44 Russian would have been my choice if I had been around in 1880. I don't see myself as a gunfighter type. Any fighting required would have been done with an 1876 Win 45-75-350 with a pistol for backup.

I find your comments on the cartridges very interesting, my research has shown the Colt 45 was available with 40gr powder, later downloaded to 35gr and the army used S&W 45 cartridges, what is not clear is if the army used Colt 45 cartridges downloaded to 28-30gr or just the shorter S&W. I suppose all four loads would have been available to civilians.

The published ballistics for the model 3 Russian are just above a modern 44 special and a bit less than the downloaded Colt 45.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy Again

The most often quoted powder charge for the 45 Colt was 40 grains. However it was probably only possible to stuff 40 grains of powder into the original folded rim Benet primed cartridges. They had the most interior capacity of any cartridge design. It is probable that the most of the commercial loads carried about 37 - 38 grains in the later Balloon Head cases that had slightly less powder capacity.

The military version of the 45 Colt carried 30 grains in a full sized case. Here are a couple of photos of a box of cartridges in my collection. This box was manufactured in 1874 at the Army's Frankford Arsenal. The round was known as Colt's Revolver Cartridge, Caliber .45, M1873.

These are the old Benet primed folded head cases. Notice there is no visible primer. The priming was internal. The priming material was sandwiched between the rear of the case and an internal anvil plate. The two crimps at the base of the case are what held the anvil plate in place. When the firing pin struck the rear of the case, the priming material was compressed between the soft copper case and the anvil plate. There were two holes punched into the anvil plate that allowed the flame from the priming material to reach the powder. These 30 grain loads had the extra space inside filled with cardboard wadding, just like the 45-70 55 grain carbine loads. Later, the same 30 grain loads were loaded into Boxer primed, Balloon Head full length cases. The round all the way on the right in the bottom photo is a modern 45 Colt round, for comparison. Notice the teeny rim on these cases, the main reason that 45 Colt was never chambered in rifles until fairly recently. Nothing for a rifle extractor to grab.



Here is a cutaway view of Benet primed, folded rim cases. The round on the left is a 45 Colt, next to it is a 45 Schofield. You can see the folded rim construction and how the anvil plate was pressed into place.

Here is a photo comparing a Balloon Head case on the left and a modern solid head case on the right. Both of these cases happen to be 44-40, but the idea is the same. You can see how much more powder capacity there was in the Balloon head case than the modern case.

I have a reprint of a turn of the Century S&W catalog in front of me. It lists the 44 Russian round as containing 23 grains of Black Powder with a 246 grain bullet. My own loads only contain 19.5 grains because that is how much powder I can stuff into modern Solid Head cases. I use a 200 grain bullet because that is the only bullet available to me that carries the tremendous amount of bullet lube that I like with Black Powder cartridges.

Here is a photo of how my 44 Russian loads are made up. I have no idea what the velocity is, never having chronographed them, but as I said, these loads are very mild when fired in my 100+ year old revolvers. I have no desire to stress my revolvers with anything more powerful.

Here is how my 45 Colt loads are made up. 2.2CC of FFg, which weighs about 35 grains, depending on what brand of powder I use, with a 250 grain bullet. Again, the powder charge was chosen because that is what fits under the bullet with moderate (1/16" - 1/8") of compression in modern solid head cases. If I were to try to stuff in 40 grains I would need to use a compression die, and I just want to keep things simple. These puppies really buck and roar when fired from a Colt SAA.

My catalog does not list the 45 Schofield round because S&W no longer cataloged the Schofield model. But Jerry Kuhnhausen's Colt Single Action Revolvers Shop Manual lists the Schofield round as holding 28 grains of FFg powder with a 230-235 grain bullet.

P.S. Was just looking through Mike Venturino's book Shooting Sixguns of the Old West. He reports that his 44 Russian loads, with a 19 grain charge of Goex FFg and a 252 grain bullet had a velocity of 690 fps. With 19 grains of Goex FFFg and the same 252 grain bullet Mike reported 740 fps. I find it interesting that I have almost exactly duplicated Mike's powder charge. I cannot remember if I looked up this data when I started loading 44 Russian or not. With my much lighter 200 grain bullet, my velocity is probably a bit higher, and my recoil is probably lighter. Mike concurs that 44 Russian gives a very mild recoil.

 

[rodwhaincamo]

Very interesting! Thanks for the lesson!

 

[Trum4n1208]

Driftwood, thanks for the info! I've only gotten into Old West firearms in the past year or so, so anytime I can learn something new is a good day for me. I load up my .45 Colt cartridges with about 35-38 grains of FFG BP Replicant (I can never find the real stuff when I look) and I agree, the recoil is very manageable and pleasant to shoot. It's a ton of fun to shoot out of my Uberti 1875 Remington.

 

[James K]

Another interesting point is that after c. 1875, the Army never issued .45 Colt ammunition. They made (at Frankford) and issued only the .45 cartridge called the .45 Revolver Cartridge, (aka .45 S&W, .45 Schofield, .45 Government, .45 Colt Government, or .45 Army). There were no issue rounds made by contractors or purchased from commercial companies.

I feel, as did the Army testers, that the S&W revolvers tend to be more delicate than the Colts. Tolerances are closer held and wear is more likely to throw things off. Probably more important to the Army is that disassembly of an S&W for repair is a lot more difficult than the Colt and requires more of a "shop" environment, whereas Colts can be worked on about anywhere.

Jim

 

[salvadore]

I can shoot my trap door forever without having to clean it using Pyrodex. My .45 single action and C&Bs need cleaning after as little as two cylinders full. That's with Pyrodex which I have found much cleaner than BP. Does anyone know what the Army issued to keep things working in the field?

 

[rodwhaincamo]

I was told, and have tried, using Ballistol on my Remington 1858's cylinder pin and it just keeps on going. It used to begin binding badly on the 3rd cylinder. I do give it a quick wipe down once in a while just because. Not historical, but it works.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

I can shoot my trap door forever without having to clean it using Pyrodex. My .45 single action and C&Bs need cleaning after as little as two cylinders full. That's with Pyrodex which I have found much cleaner than BP. Does anyone know what the Army issued to keep things working in the field?

Howdy

I dunno what the Army issued. I suspect it was just water.

Read again what I had to say about the cylinder bushing protecting the cylinder pin from a buildup of BP fouling and study the photos. I use Big Lube bullets in all my BP loads, 45 Colt, 45 Schofield, 44-40, 44 Russian, and 38-40. They carry enough soft lube to keep the fouling in a rifle barrel soft, preventing buildup of hard fouling in the bore. They do great in a revolver too. I lube my BP bullets with SPG, but you can use just about any soft bullet lube, including many homemade concoctions. I shot a two day match this past weekend, putting a total of 100 rounds each through my New Model #3 and one of my Merwin Hulberts. They shot fine for both days, with no cleaning in between days. Just kept on shooting. I also lubricate the cylinder pins liberally with Ballistol to keep things running smoothly.

Here is a photo of the bushings on, left to right, an Uberti Cattleman, a Ruger Vaquero, and a 2nd Gen Colt. These all do an excellent job of preventing BP fouling from reaching the cylinder pin. With enough of a good BP lube on the bullets, these guns can all shoot all day long with BP without binding up.

The one gun which does not do terribly well with Black Powder is the 1858 Remington. That is because there is no bushing on the front of the cylinder. Here is a photo both a Cap & Ball cylinder, and a cartridge conversion cylinder for the 1858 Remmie. No bushing at all to protect the cylinder pin. When firing my Remmies with their conversion cylinders and 45 Schofield rounds I have to wipe off the front of the cylinder after every cylinder full or they will start to bind up.

About the only solution to that is to cut a helical groove in the pin and load it up with Bore Butter, or something similar. This helps a little bit, but not much.

 

[45 Dragoon]

DJ, good education here!! Thank you. Great pis too !!