Interesting Illustrations from an old S&W Catalog

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

On Saturday I was at the gunshow at the Big E in Springfield Mass. One item of interest I picked up was a reprint of a 1900 era S&W catalog. This was reprinted in 1962 by an outfit called Jayco. One of the members at the S&W Forum gave me some information about the fellow who did these reprints.

I scanned the front cover of the catalog, as well as a couple of interesting photos from the inside.

Here is the front cover.



Next is a scan of a large frame single action. Clearly a New Model Number Three. However the catalog chose to call it a Russian Model. Most interesting. This is the only large frame single action revolver in the catalog, the American, Russian (as we know it), and Schofield are not shown. The 44 Double Action is shown. The newest firearm in the catalog is the 38 Model of 1899, which was the predecessor to the M&P we are all familiar with.





This is the page that faces the 44 Single Action. It shows the cartridges the revolver was being chambered for. Some very interesting ones here that I had heard of but never seen before.





Hope this is of some interest.

P.S. by the way, another top break pocket S&W followed me home that day. I'll post a photo after I clean it up a little bit.

[Irish Dave]

Very cool. Thanks, Driftwood.

[Shotgun Franklin]

Did S&W have a lot of parts and just keep putting gun together or did they keep producing them that late?

[kurt250]

i have always liked those old woodcut pictures that the old catalogs used in those days. i sure wish someone would introduce a long barrel 1 st. model russian replica for sale. uberti could just make a long barrel upper for there current model #3 russian. i like the look of those long barrel russians. kurt250

[Driftwood Johnson]

Did S&W have a lot of parts and just keep putting gun together or did they keep producing them that late?

It depends on what models you are talking about. S&W was continually improving their top break revolvers. Some models were dropped while improved models replaced them. A quick perusal of the SCSW shows that a lot of the 32 and 38 caliber top breaks were manufactured up until about 1910 or so. The first 32 cal Hand Ejector came out in 1896 and the first 38 cal Hand Ejector came out in 1899, so the Top Breaks would have started to be seen as obsolete. But it looks like the 38 Safety Hammerless 5th Model was made up until 1940.

With the bigger guns, they stopped making the American in 1874, they stopped making the Russian in 1878, and they stopped making the Schofield in 1877. The firearm in my scan is actually a New Model Number Three. They were first produced in 1878 and all the frames had been manufactured by 1898, although they were still cataloged until about 1912. By that time the first model 44 Hand Ejector (Triple Lock) had been produced (1908).

Pretty much the same story with the 44 Double Action. First produced in 1881, all frames manufactured by 1898, still cataloged until 1913.




They also had a lot of parts on hand. There are part illustrations and prices for every revolver in the catalog.

P.S. Kurt - these are not wood cuts. They are simply a form of line drawing that was very popular around the turn of the century. Wood cuts were an older style of printing that was done by cutting an illustration into a block of wood. The block of wood was then covered with ink and used to reproduce the illustration on paper.

[Trailrider]

There's an interesting thing about the ad...the gun pictured is NOT a "Russian" model, but rather a New Model #3 chambered for the .44 Russian cartridge.  They also offered it in .32-44 and .38-44, plus a limited number of .38-40 and .44-40's (by extending the cylinder).

Note the reference to the rebounding lock! Makes one of the few single action revolvers in the Old West that was actually safe to carry with the cylinder fully loaded! (I wouldn't just for habit's sake, due to the number of Colt's & clones around.)

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy Trailrider

If you read all the text of my original post you will see that I mentioned that the gun in the illustration is a New Model Number Three, not a Russian. I dunno why S&W decided to call it a Russian. Perhaps because the most common chambering for that model was 44 Russian.

I am lucky enough to own a New Model Number Three. A spring does indeed force the hammer back after it falls, pulling the firing pin away from any cartridges. When the trigger is released, the sear then falls into a notch on the hammer, effectively trapping the trigger, much like the 'safety cock' notch on a Colt. However, just like the fragile 'safety cock' notch on a Colt, I have no confidence that this revolver would be any safer with a fully loaded cylinder than a Colt. I am quite sure if dropped from the hip onto its hammer, it would discharge a live round if there was one under the hammer. Just like a Colt, I am sure something inside would break, probably the sear.

[Christopher Carson]

Interesting the cartridge page says the .44 Russian willl penetrate 7½ pine boards, and the .44 Winchester will penetrate only 6½ boards.  I wonder if true.  Heavier bullet at modest velocity, could be.  Or it could be S&W would not accept (or at least advertise) second place in that comparison.

If the only difference with the .44-40 and .38-40 chamberings is an extended cylinder... I wonder how that worked with the gas ring in those models, whether those bound up more quickly similar to the way the Ubertis are said to work (or not) with black powder.  've been experimenting with loading .44-40 for an Uberti Schofield, but haven't tried to run black through it...  I wonder if the thin walls of the .44 WCF case would somehow seal better (as in rifles) and therefore work with BP better than folks describefor the .45s.  Rhetorical questions, at this point...

I have an original New Model 1½ and it has a rebounding hammer, similar to what I think you're describing.

-Chris

[Driftwood Johnson]

If the only difference with the .44-40 and .38-40 chamberings is an extended cylinder... I wonder how that worked with the gas ring in those models, whether those bound up more quickly similar to the way the Ubertis are said to work (or not) with black powder.  've been experimenting with loading .44-40 for an Uberti Schofield, but haven't tried to run black through it...  I wonder if the thin walls of the .44 WCF case would somehow seal better (as in rifles) and therefore work with BP better than folks describefor the .45s.  Rhetorical questions, at this point...

According to Supica and Nahas (Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson) the 38-40 and 44-40 versions of the New Model Number Three with their longer cylinders also had the frames lengthened a proportionate amount. So the gas ring detail was probably kept the same.

I suspect S&W learned the lesson from the Schofield. The whole reason the 45 Schofield cartridge was invented was because S&W did not want to lengthen their standard #3 frame. The cylinders then in use were not long enough to accommodate the 45 Colt round, so the shorter 45 Schofield round was developed. This lead to headaches of supply with the Army. When Schofield production ceased in 1877 I suspect Smith had learned their lesson and decided that with the New Model Number Three, if they needed to lengthen the cylinder and frame for a particular cartridge, then that was what they would do.

Although 44-40 is the bee's knees in a rifle, sealing the chamber very well and keeping the fouling in the barrel where it belongs, the same is not true of a revolver. A rifle is basically a closed system, a revolver is not. Fouling will still blast out of the barrel/cylinder gap no matter how well the cartridge seals in the chamber. You have to deal with the blast from the gap, to prevent binding, no matter how well you seal a cartridge in the chamber.

[Christopher Carson]

Although 44-40 is the bee's knees in a rifle, sealing the chamber very well and keeping the fouling in the barrel where it belongs, the same is not true of a revolver. A rifle is basically a closed system, a revolver is not. Fouling will still blast out of the barrel/cylinder gap no matter how well the cartridge seals in the chamber. You have to deal with the blast from the gap, to prevent binding, no matter how well you seal a cartridge in the chamber.

Ah.  Good point, I'd overlooked that part of it. 

-C

[Trailrider]

Howdy Trailrider

If you read all the text of my original post you will see that I mentioned that the gun in the illustration is a New Model Number Three, not a Russian. I dunno why S&W decided to call it a Russian. Perhaps because the most common chambering for that model was 44 Russian.

I am lucky enough to own a New Model Number Three. A spring does indeed force the hammer back after it falls, pulling the firing pin away from any cartridges. When the trigger is released, the sear then falls into a notch on the hammer, effectively trapping the trigger, much like the 'safety cock' notch on a Colt. However, just like the fragile 'safety cock' notch on a Colt, I have no confidence that this revolver would be any safer with a fully loaded cylinder than a Colt. I am quite sure if dropped from the hip onto its hammer, it would discharge a live round if there was one under the hammer. Just like a Colt, I am sure something inside would break, probably the sear.

DJ,
Being the genetically nervous type, I don't even load six rounds in my transfer bar equipped Rugers! The thing with the NM#3 is that at least you probably couldn't have the type of accident encountered by John Finerty, the "Fightin' Irish Pencil Pusher", a combat correspondent with Gen. Crook's column on the Big Horn & Yellowstone expedition: As he was mounting his horse, something hit the hammer of his (presumably) Colt's SAA, which "by chance had the hammer resting on a cartridge", causing a discharge that sent a bullet into his saddle. Fortunately, neither he nor his horse were injured. (Match DQ?  )

Y'all ride CAREFULL out ther, Pards!

[Will Ketchum]

Driftwood, in that era most any revolver that was chambered for the 44 Russian was called a "Russian Model".  I have a Merwin Hulbert Russian copy that is marked "Russian Model", it is chambered for the 44 Russian.  I am certain that is what S&W was doing.

Will Ketchum