The Cartridge Era Begins
At the end of the Civil War, big changes were coming to the world of sixguns, and those changes were originating in Springfield, Massachusetts. Still, revolver manufacturers in general were about to see some busy times – and the state of the art in revolvers was destined to change dramatically over the next forty-odd years.
Smith & Wesson
The Smith & Wesson #1 and #2 revolvers served as proof of concept, but the pipsqueak factor didn’t do S&W’s sales any favors. If a pistolero wanted something that packed a real punch, he still had to go to a cap and ball revolver. So, in 1870, the Springfield company brought out the #3, the gun that would change things for the cartridge revolver market.
Bear in mind that Smith & Wesson still held Rollin White’s patent at this time, guaranteeing them to be the only ones that could make a revolver with a bored-through cylinder in the United States. This did White little good, as the terms of the patent agreement with S&W required White to defend against patent infringement, a bonehead move on White’s part that left him penniless while Smith & Wesson was coining a lot of money with their modern revolvers.
The #3 was made in two versions. The first was the Russian, chambered for the .44 Russian cartridge, and the second became known as the Schofield after Major George W. Schofield, who offered design advice to Smith & Wesson; the latter arm was initially chambered for the .44 S&W American, which later became the basis for the .44 Special and the .44 Remington Magnum cartridges. S&W later offered the Schofield in .44 Henry Rimfire, .44-40, .32-44, .38-44, and .45 Schofield.
Unlike the #1 and #2, the #3 guns were hinged at the bottom of the frame in front of the cylinder. This removed the necessity of removing the cylinder for loading and allowed the addition of an extractor to make the removal of spent brass easier. Now the soldier, hunter or pistolero had a gun that was quick to load, reliable and powerful. Quite a few notorious personages favored the big Smith, including Jesse James, John Wesley Harding, Pat Garrett, Wyatt Earp, Billy the Kid and a young fellow named Theodore Roosevelt.
Later, Smith & Wesson continued to innovate, bringing out some of the first production double-action revolvers. The New Departure double-actions were offered for sale beginning in 1887 in .32S&W and .38S&W calibers, with the break-top design of the #3. Also known as the “Safety Hammerless,” these guns were striker-fired and had a grip safety.
But while Smith & Wesson was cranking out revolvers, the competition wasn’t idle. During the post-war years the folks at Colt went through some bad times but were about to come roaring back in spectacular fashion.
Colt Wasn’t Just Sitting Around
Smith & Wesson notwithstanding, the late 19th century story of revolvers is largely Colt’s story.
Sam Colt’s decision to sell a mess of sixguns to the newly-formed Confederacy was to end up costing the company badly. Sam Colt had been derided in the press as a traitor, and the Colt manufactory lost both reputation and revenue due to that decision. But when Rollin White’s patent expired in 1869, the folks at Smith & Wesson soon learned that the Colt people hadn’t just been sitting on their hands; they were planning a comeback in their own cartridge revolvers.
The first production cartridge-firing Colt, the 1871-72 Open Top, firing the .44 Henry Flat cartridge. The Open Top seemed as much as anything like a reason to use up a bunch of old cap & ball parts, and indeed prior to its introduction Colt did convert a lot of old percussion guns. The Open Top was never a big seller, carrying over the percussion Colt’s open topped frame and primitive sights. Colt also offered two versions of a pipsqueak revolver chambered in .41 Rimfire, the 5-shot House Gun and the 4-shot Cloverleaf.
But in 1873, everything in Colt’s past was wiped away when they introduced a gun the likes of which only comes along a few times in a century, a gun that was to become the stuff of legend: The Single Action Army.
Also known as the Model P, the Peacemaker, the M1873, the Frontier Six-Shooter (in .44-40 caliber) and the Gun That Won the West, the SAA was quickly adopted by the U.S. Army, who purchased many of these guns in two forms, the 7 ½” barreled “cavalry” revolver and the 5 ½” barreled “artillery” version. A 4 ¾” version was available for civilians, and quickly became much sought after by lawmen, cowboys and guntwists of all sorts. Colt’s new single action was remarkably well balanced, had a grip that was admirably suited to be fired one-handed while the shooter’s other hand was holding reins. In fact, many modern shooters may look at the Colt and wonder about the placement of the loading gate on the strong side of most shooters which can make reloading a bit awkward, but it’s important to remember that the gun was designed for military use – and in those days, that meant use by horsemen.
The SAA was initially offered in .45 Colt but later also chambered in over thirty calibers, from the .22 rimfire to the .44-40, .44 Special and .357 Magnum. In 1890 Colt offered a flat-t
op target model with improved sights, and in 1894 the Bisley model was brought out, named for the famous Bisley pistol range in England a
nd intended to appeal to target shooters. Barrel lengths were eventually offered ranging from the 3” “Shopkeeper” to the 18” “Buntline” versions.
The Peacemaker quickly overshadowed Smith & Wesson’s offerings for several reasons. First, the solid frame of the Colt was generally regarded as much stronger than the hinged-frame Smith. If a cowboy or gunsel ran out of ammo and had to settle a scrap by banging his sidearm over an opponent’s head, the Smith was liable to break at the hinge or the catch; the solid-frame Colt was far more likely to survive being abused in this manner. But the primary reason was that the Colt was much handier, better balanced and performed better under conditions of dust, dirt, damp and cold. It was a one-in-a-thousand design, one that persists today not only from Colt but from a dozen or more replica manufacturers.
Colt didn’t neglect the double-action market, either; in 1877 they introduced the 1877 double-action, which loaded through a gate in the same manner as the Peacemaker; it was offered in .32 Colt (the Rainmaker) .38 Long Colt (the Lightning) and .41 Long Colt (the Thunderer.) No less than Billy the Kid favored the Thunderer, carrying a brace of them on his adventures. In 1878 they brought out the last of their rod-ejector double-actions, the big Colt Alaskan in .45 Colt.
In 1889, Colt made another technological innovation when they introduced the M1889, the first production double-action revolver with a swing-out cylinder released by a sliding latch; thus, was the modern form of the double-action revolver completed. The .38 Long Colt cartridge it used, however, was sorely lacking. But in 1898 Colt addressed that by releasing the New Service revolver, a big, tough handgun chambered in .38-40, .44 Russian, .44-40, .45 Colt, .455 Webley, and later .45 ACP, .38 Special, .357 Magnum and .44 Special. This was the first modern combat magnum and following the much-discussed failure of the Colt 1889 revolver and its anemic .38 Long Colt cartridge in the Philippines and other venues, both Army and Marines bought a number of .45 Colt New Service revolvers as the Model 1909, which remained in use even after the adoption of the 1911 automatic.
A few years back I ran into a guy on our gun club’s pistol range who had an old 1909 Colt. I fired a couple cylinders through it, and while this big gun was adequately tough for its day, I wouldn’t run any of my own heavy .45 Colt loads through it; in an abundance of caution I restrict those to my own modern revolvers. With factory ammo, the New Service points naturally, shoots well one-handed or two, and the gun’s weight makes the recoil very manageable and quick follow-up shots are easy. It’s a damned fine piece.
Meanwhile, though, while Colt was moving from triumph to triumph, those folks up in Ilion were busy as well.
Remington Stays in The Fray
Remington Arms was beginning to transition more and more into a company that made rifles and shotguns more than handguns, but in 1875 they did introduce their answer to Colt’s Single Action Army. The 1875 Remington Improved Army revolver was a near-copy of Colt’s more successful Single Action Army, using most of the lockwork of the old 1858 Army revolver and retaining that gun’s removable cylinder. The 1875 was later refined into the 1890 Army, but Remington never succeeded in landing any big U.S. Army contracts, and so the Ilion company’s revolver line eventually fizzled out.
And a Surprise Entry!
It’s not widely known, but Winchester made a few prototype revolvers, intending to market them alongside the company’s famous lever-action rifles. Four prototypes were built, including one double-action with a swing-out cylinder; the prototypes were designed by Winchester engineer Hugo Borchardt. If that name sounds familiar, it is because he also was the brain behind the toggle-action Borchardt pistol, which formed the basis for the Luger. So, it isn’t unreasonable to say that the Winchester revolver prototypes were first cousins to the European P-08.
Even so, no Winchester revolvers ever saw production. While the history is uncertain, word is that a gentleman’s agreement was struck between Colt and Winchester, the result of which was Colt discontinuing their Colt-Burgess lever-action rifle, and Winchester giving up on the revolver market. This agreement still holds true today.
And Then This Happened
In 1908, a combination of events occurred that would once again shake up the sixgun market. The first was Smith & Wesson’s introduction of the very fine First Model New Century and its .44 Special cartridge. The New Century became known as the Triple Lock, due to its three locking mechanisms. It was by many accounts the best revolver made to date. In fact, some consider it to be the finest double-action revolver ever made, and it’s true that the Triple Lock with its redundant mechanisms and fair amount of hand-fitting would likely cost several thousand dollars were the identical gun made today. (In 1908 the gun sold for the princely sum of $21.)
The second thing that happened had longer-lasting implications. The excellent Triple Lock caught the attention of a young Montana cowboy, pistolero and novice gun writer. That young man’s name was Elmer Keith, and his work with the Triple Lock and his own heavy loads for Smith & Wesson’s “38-44” and .44 Special cartridges, along with his own trademark hard-cast, flat point bullets, would change the rules for handgunners once again. In fact, Keith’s bullets and his loads for various rounds are in large part the basis for my own experiments with heavy .45 Colt loads.
More on that in the penultimate segment of this history, Part 5.
Comments
103 responses to “A History of The Six-gun, Part Four”
No love for H&R?
Dad and I talked about the H&R revolver he gifted me last year just last night! Not really a gift per se, just “Here’s some home defense, I don’t use it.” I’ve still yet to fire it. Neither of us is experienced with firearms beyond plinking at prairie dogs a couple times a year, so we don’t know nothin bout nothin. But he’d done some reading the night before: “It’s a cheap knock-off S&W, but reliable.”
I want to say it’s a 925 .32, but I’m not at home.
They pioneered a few things as well in the pocket pistol world. I believe they did the first hammerless (although I am a dilettante in the field and will defer to anyone expert)
H&R might be an interesting article unto themselves. They’ve had some neat designs across the spectrum.
Isn’t that exactly the reason (no pun) that we are all here?
Shut up, you half-wit.
giggle
I have a 686, .22 12″ with an lr and a magnum cylinder. It loads like a single action colt (and looks like one) but fire double or single. I keep meaning to go spend a day zeroing the sights, but it’s pretty good at 25 yards as is. Neat little revolver.
Great piece, as always.
Agreed.
Even so, no Winchester revolvers ever saw production. While the history is uncertain, word is that a gentleman’s agreement was struck between Colt and Winchester, the result of which was Colt discontinuing their Colt-Burgess lever-action rifle, and Winchester giving up on the revolver market. This agreement still holds true today.
A Free market, mutually agreed non-competition agreement. How quaint!
Loving this series, Animal. Great stuff! The history series being put out here as of late (I especially enjoyed Raven Nation’s piece on the dude who paddled a canoe to debate Quakers) are excellent, informative, and great reads. Can’t thank you enough.
Another quality product.
I am really enjoying this series.
I’m not really a revolver guy, but I am going to get a Navy Colt one of these days for fun.
Thanks for researching and writing this.
Not an aficionado but enjoying the series, none the less. Nice work, you Animal!
Great again, Animal. Always enjoy the gun stuff. I’m a Thompson Contender guy so I’m out of the ballpark other than a Smith and a couple other things that make noise.
We have a Contender. So far we only have a .22LR and a .222 barrel for it, but I’ve been thinking of getting a .30-30 barrel for deer-sized stuff at short range (but totally not out the truck window. Seriously. Not at all.)
I shot a deer with a 30 Herrett at about 60 yards, also have a 41 Rem mag, 45 Winc mag, 6.5mm X .223, .22, .223. Even with a 14 inch barrel the .45 makes your hand burn a little.
Great articles, lots of yummy history,
Thanks Animal!
Kooky
Semi OT: Deadly Class on Syfy is a hoot. It’s a homage to the 80’s, and the soundtrack is excellent. It’s like someone combined Battle Royale with the Warriors.
This has been a great series. Thanks, Animal.
Thanks for the great work. Might be time to expand my revolver collection.
OT – Yowza! https://youtu.be/JX9tDz4rwmE?list=RD5WNiwhEvGKU
Bean Blossom used to be a bluegrass festival.
Thanks for the articles, Animal. I’m enjoying them a lot.
One vocabulary question: Single-action/Double-action what does this signify?
It describes what the trigger does.
Single action – drops hammer. You have to cock the hammer then pull the trigger.
Double action – pulling the trigger cocks the hammer, then drops it.
For automatics, you run into a combo (usually? I know there are some double-action only semi autos, but I think they aren’t terribly common). The slide cocks the hammer when you shoot, so if the hammer is down for the first shot, its DA, and then its SA for subsequent shots.
Yes, many pistols are DA/SA and there are autoloaders which are DAO (double action only) and SAO.
The more your hand moves during shooting, the more chances there are to fuck up a shot. A DA trigger needs to move a lot more in order to pull the hammer back, so they are considered less accurate. My Ruger Mark I, being a target pistol is SAO.
Looking at the bottom two pictures. Look at the trigger placement. The bottom picture has the trigger close to the trigger guard, SA.
Next picture up has trigger in the middle, DA.
“This one neat trick . . .”
I had never noticed that, not being a revolver guy. Handy way to tell one from the other. Thanks.
really short video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqP89TkQVng
Thanks.
Most later revolvers are sa/da, in that you can pull the trigger and a shot will fire until it’s empty, or you can cock the hammer for each individual shot. Advantage is that when cooked manually, the trigger pull is substantially lighter, hence less tendency to pull off your aim.
A great series, Animal. Thank you!
Almost all my handguns are revolvers. I am loving this series.
My dad taught me to hunt and is still hunting in his 80’s. The one big brag that I have on him is getting a nice Montana Mule deer with my .357Mag Ruger Blackhawk.
I had one of those. I wish I had never gotten rid of it. It was a little hard for me to control with .38, but was a peach to shoot .357.
Stop. Backup. Reverse that! .38 was a peach, .357 was a chore.
I was about to say it sounded odd.
Thanks, I was a little concerned. My mileage varied on your first comment.
Try the Airweight J frame. I bought one of the titanium ones as a ‘carry’ gun when I was younger and dumber/more arrogant. I put a box of .357 through the day after I bought it ’cause “you practice with what you carry” and my thumb swelled up like I had broken it (which I may have lol). Scared of that gun ever after.
I actually prefer shooting my GP-100 in .357 rather than .38. Something about that thump that is satisfying.
Ha! I have a beautiful S&W 329PD (titanium cylinder, scandium frame) in .44 magnum. I own it for the sole purpose of defense against bears while camping/biking single-track in Colorado’s Front Range. I’ve put probably 50 rounds through it (at most) and I really hope to never have to fire it again; the felt recoil is absolutely brutal.
No Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan?
My hand hurts just looking at that.
My head hurts looking at all the stamped text. Good to see Ruger still trying to stamp the whole owner’s manual on the pistol.
Agreed, all that text is dumb.
All that graffiti is terrible. And what is .480 Remington? Sounds like an invitation to break my wrist with that little thing.
OT:
After talking about it yesterday, I watched UHF last night with my wife.
We had watched it together many years ago and her English wasn’t as good so she didn’t get a lot of the jokes.
Now that she understands it better, she still didn’t think it was funny.
But she didn’t like My Name is Bruce either, plus she married an idiot, so what does she know.
Bonus: She had to admit she couldn’t tell the difference between SUPPLIES! and SURPRISE!
S’okay, I tried to get my step-kids into Caveman. It was a bust. Guess you had to be there.
You have to admit “My Name is Bruce” is really geared towards people who are familiar with the actor’s work and fans of it.
She’s not a fan of his B horror, but she did like him in Burn Notice.
The Evil Dead was a big hit, though.
My wife wasn’t entertained by Midnight Run. After I calmed down and stopped looking for divorce attorneys, I figured we should just not watch movies together, documentaries aside.
Meh. Didn’t take.
I have my great-uncle’s revolver (a gift from Pater Dean, together with its cartridge belt; sadly, the holster has gone walkabout). It had many adventures in NM and Mexico, including assisting in breaking a cowhand out of a Mexican jail (where he totally belonged since they were down there to rustle cattle). I am embarrassed to say I don’t actually know what make or model it is. I plan to remedy that tonight.
Here’s a question:
Let’s say the Dems get their wet dream of very high marginal rates (“just like back in the ’50s!”) without the tax shelters that actually kept anyone from paying those rates. I saw that one year, only eight (8) people actually paid at the top rate.
Without those shelters, what will people do to keep their money safe from the IRS?
Expatriate
I suppose renouncing citizenship and leaving the country is an option. I was wondering whether there might be something short of that.
Lie.
Murder the tax collectors.
Overthrow the government.
Lie.
You can lie about income you recieve as folding money. No point in trying to lie about anything else, these days.
You can lie about income you recieve as folding money.
Only if you spend it that way as well. These days that means on groceries or lunch. I think anyone past the waiting tables or bartending stage is pretty much declaring everything. Also, no way they don’t bring back the shelters with the rates. The rates are for the unconnected proles like us to pay.
Also, no way they don’t bring back the shelters with the rates.
I expect so. Watching a bunch of self-declared Dem Socialists packing the tax code with shelters for rich capitalists will be fun.
Did you see them hyperventilate over capping the state/local tax deduction? WE CANT GET RID OF A DEDUCTION ONLY THE RICH USE!!!
That SALT thing was a marvel of misdirection and lies. You would think that it was going to raise taxes on people who don’t even itemize (which, by the way, will be a lot fewer people going forward since they raised the standard deduction), much less people who pay less than 10K in SALT.
Any word on the “charitable” workarounds the Blue States were working on?
OR THE MIDDLE AND UPPER-MIDDLE-CLASS IN HEAVILY- TAXED ONE-PARTY DEMOCRAT JURISDICTIONS!
For years, SALT was the single item on my itemization list – and I never would have even thought of it before I started using software. I’m not rich, but my local taxes are high enough to make use of it.
@Rhywun
Remember that they didn’t eliminate the SALT deduction, just capped it at $10K. If you’re middle class and your state is still taking $10K off you, you might want to move.
As I recall, you can take mortgage interest or SALT but not both.
Home owners in blue states with high property values and high taxes get fucked.
You can do SALT and mortgage interest both, or at least you could. I haven’t heard that was changed in the recent tax reform.
No, the new standard deduction is better now.
google says I was in error. So RC Dean wins.
For now, at least. Hand in hand with the higher taxes is a desire to force a cashless society. They’ve already started this in India.
A blackmarket for cash will always exist regardless, but I think outlawing it would drastically decrease its use.
I pay all service workers in cash for the reason you gave and they all really appreciate it. Though, ironically, one guy desperately tries to get a W2 or 1099 from anywhere just for a month or so out of the year each year. Needs to show just a little income on paper to get that sweet Earned Income Credit on his tax return.
I recall a sizable cash discount on reshingling a house (with a crew that, shall we say, wasn’t overly burdened with the English language).
I agree. No private exchange ever again. Bitcoin wouldn probalby explode, as well as trading in preciuos metals. Still, we’d be objectively worse off.
There will always be people who can’t get a debit card, much less a credit card.
There will always be people who can’t get a debit card, much less a credit card.
From the people who gave you Obamaphones, its WarrenCard!
Yep, India has an exponentially more poor population than America, yet they’re still enforcing a cashless society through shit like that. The gov is targeting the employers to enforce it.
Plus, no cash means they can move to negative interest rates and _force_ you to spend your savings.
* Keynesians start orgasming uncontrollably *
Presto! https://youtu.be/hb-RPGhpBSI
“Without those shelters, what will people do to keep their money safe from the IRS?”
No kidding. They are going to start decorating lamp posts, and I will help.
I own a pitchfork and know how to build a torch! Where do I apply?
Also OT – I’ve been grooving on The Regrettes until I found out that the lead singer is 18 and then felt the shame. But I went back and listened again! OMWC in training, I suppose… https://youtu.be/Iiqf2R462lo
No shame. 18 is legal. 18 you
can gobe forced to die for your country. If you can’t lust after 18 year olds, I don’t want to live in this country anymore.It ain’t lust. It’s that longing of summer fair and cheeks of down. And envy. I wish I could put a band together like that with a premise and some cute chicks.
*googles “shame”*
Huh. Interesting. Is that a common phenomenon?
Well, I didn’t really groove on the Go-Gos until I was in my forties.
Libertarian bonafides confirmed.
Yes.
Dad’s pride and joy was this SAA in .38-40
https://imgur.com/a/Iqk1oe3
The .38-40 was available as both a pistol and a rifle round so that a cowboy had to carry only one cartridge. Dad described it as an anemic rifle round and a very hot pistol round.
My sister wound up with it when Dad passed.
That looks a lot like Great-Uncle Dean’s gun.
Dammit, I am this close to leaving work early to track it down.
That thing is gorgeous.
I would think that they would still want to carry at least two cartridges.
Depends on how good a shot you are, I guess.
Without those shelters, what will people do to keep their money safe from the IRS?
They’ll try to reclassify everything as capital gains. I know this because of all the crying about the “carried interest loophole”. That, or they’ll spend it on “business equipment”.
My business could use a new snowmobile and Side by Side
Dad’s pride and joy was this SAA in .38-40
Man, that’s purty.
The .38-40 was available as both a pistol and a rifle round so that a cowboy had to carry only one cartridge. Dad described it as an anemic rifle round and a very hot pistol round.
A long time ago, one of my friends had what I believe was a Ruger revolver which fired .30-.30 rifle rounds. Holy shit that thing was loud.
Only .30-30 revolver I’m aware of is Magnum Research’s BFR, which is also available in .45-70, .500 and .460 S&W. Damn thing would make a better boat anchor than a handgun.
“BFR” – funny.
I might have gone with “ROUS”.
I read somewhere that a 14″ barrel in 30-30 on a Contender puts out a 14 foot long fire ball of burning powder. A lot of waste there.
Only .30-30 revolver
It was a long time ago. Maybe it was .30 cal, not 30-30, if that makes a difference. As I recall, it was a rifle round.
Ruger did sell the Blackhawk in the .30 Carbine round.
Dammit. I missed another Animal article.
I have most of the guns mentioned, but no cap and ball. Considered getting one but they are a real pain in the ass to load and clean.
I did this with a rifle and not a revolver, but I once learned that piss makes a middling-decent black powder solvent.
Don’t ask me how I came to know that.
When Pater Dean had a ranch, we would go out to break ice for the cows. If there had been any freezing rain, etc., the padlocks on the gates would be frozen solid. We would piss on them to get them to work.
He had a cattle dog who would go with us. On one brutally cold day, we bashed a hole in the ice on one pond that was probably two feet on a side. It was probably the only open water for miles. The damn dog fell in.
This is another good entry in the series.
And reminds me I need a revolver.