WHY SINGLE ACTION?

[willy]

Remington had 1858 double action 36cal revolvers during the Civil War,,Colt had a double action in 45 colt in 1878,,S&W had their double action in 1881...Sooooooo,,,If you were a calvery man in the Civil War what gun would  you want to carry on horse back into a fight,,,a double action or a sa?..Or if you were a town marshal facing down the Clanton gang ,,wouldn't you rather have a double action revolver?...So thoughts as to ,,,Why was the SAA so popular when double actions were available?

[Reverend P. Babcock Chase]

Howdy Willy,

I'm no historian, but it seems to me that the military went with the least complex, hopefully more reliable design. The single actions of the day had few parts and could even run with broken parts (though not well). The DA's were more complicated and fragile (from the reports of the era). In fact the few examples I have seen had pretty bad trigger pulls.

A military armorer who had been working on muskets could easily diagnose and fix an SAA. The DA designs may have taxed their training.

I welcome responsible opposing viewpoints, but the above capsulizes the extent of my ability to make stuff up.

Reverend Chase

[willy]

Howdy Willy,



I welcome responsible opposing viewpoints, but the above capsulizes the extent of my ability to make stuff up.

Reverend Chase

[Coffinmaker]

The double action guns of the day contained lots of little delicate parts that broke.  Often.  The first real improvement of the Double Action that I have actual experience working on was the Colt Thunderer.  However, DAs had such a bad Rap most whom lived by the gun had no confidence in them.

My personal choice would be a Single Action.  Colt Pattern.  I don't like Remington's.

[Galloway]

Cause they didn't train to the worst case tactical reload offhand on the move scenario like today. Plus a cartridge firing single action is plenty better than arrows. 

[Doc Jackson]

I would agree with what everybody else says about complexity and especially fragility (Colt 1878's seem to have a reputation for being fragile). I would also add cost, particularly in a military context when you need a lot of something.

[FriscoCounty]

A lot of double actions revolvers were produced and sold, more than single actions, but the Gospel according to John Ford made the Colt Peacemaker iconic. 

Colt produced approx 192,000 BP Model 1873s by 1900. Half of those were in .45 Colt. The rest in .44-40, .38-40, .32-20, .41 Colt, and .44 Henry (1,963). The Military purchased 37,063 of the production between 1893 and 1891. In 1874, military purchases comprised 12,500 and civilian 3,500.

For the S&W, production started in 1870. 8,969 of the Schofield model in .45 Schofield were purchased by the military. Civilian production comprised 32,800 1st Models, 2nd Models, and Civilian Russian models. 500 Model 3 American transitional. 48,713 New Model 3s. This does not include foreign military purchases which were about 160,000. The also produced over 300,000 double action versions in .38 S&W by 1895 and 54,668 double actions in .44 Russian between 1881 and 1913. S&W also produced non Model 3 break-top double actions in this period in various calibers including .44-40 and .38-40.

So, pre-1900 production of S&W Model 3 single action and double actions variants in .38 caliber and larger outnumbered Colt 1873s.

[Blair]

Colt does a pretty good job of securing patens for the single action revolver in most of the arms producing Nations of the world, dating back into the late 1830's.
Those Nations wanting to produce revolvers looked into developing double actions. Briton being one of the biggest involved, with companies like Adams and Webley. Many being produced years before Colt or S&W started producing DA's.
Many of these are double action "only''. Meaning you cannot fire them by cocking the hammer. They can only be fired by pulling the trigger. This simplified the internals of the action making them more reliable.
It is a fascinating area of research.
I hope this info helps.
My best,
Blair

[Baltimore Ed]

It's a shame Webley didn't open a couple of outlet stores in the US. They certainly knew how to build large bore DA revolvers. Sure they were pricy but the British military liked them.

[Doc Jackson]

@FriscoCounty is right, it slipped my mind.  DA pocket revolvers in .32 S&W and .38 S&W were extremely common. They were top breaks 5 or 6 shots, with hammer exposed or shielded made by S&W, Forehand and Wadsworth, Iver Johnson and others. You can find them on gunbroker for as low a $25 for a fixer upper or parts gun. But yeah those little guns were every where, very common.

[Books OToole]

From 1873 through 1940 Colt produced 300,000 SAAs.
From 1880-1940 Smith & Wesson produced over a million top-break .38s. (850,000+ DAs.)
Plus 50k DA .44s.
and about a million .32s

Harrington & Richardson manufactured about 1.3 million DAs 1880-1940.

And the S & W DAs were much more reliable than the Colt DAs.
(But not as robust as the SAA Colt.)

Books

[Jack Straw]

A splendid example of a question that never needed asking.

[Dave T]

I owned and shot a S&W DA 44 Russian. A good friend owned a Merwin & Holbert DA Pocket Army in 44 WCF. I loaded some BP ammo for him and we shot his gun, both DA and SA. The DA trigger pulls on both of these period revolvers were just awful. Long, heavy, and with release that was more of a crash than a clean break.

Having been a professional firearms in structor for over 16 years and having shot in the various practical pistol competitions for 30 years, I think it would have been difficult to deliver accurate fire from one of those guns at anything beyond the width of a card table. Both rolled back in the hand making follow-up shots slow and difficult (the M&H was worse than the S&W).

Just my take on the subject, based on my own experience. YMMV!

Dave

[Doc Jackson]

I think we've established that they were available in large numbers, without answering the OP's question. We know DA's were available, he was asking why did SA's persist.

Why was the SAA so popular when double actions were available?

If I had to guess, maybe cost? Im looking through my Meachams 1883 catalog. Prices list for common models

SINGLE ACTIONS .44 or .45, basic models.

Merwin and Hulbert .44 old model          $13.33
Merwin and Hulbert .44 new model        $16.00
Remingtons Improved Frontier model     $9.67
Colt New Model Army Six Shot Revolver  $13.75
Colt Frontier Model Revolver                  $15.00
Colt Army Revolver .44RF                      $7.50


DOUBLE ACTIONS .44 or .45, basic models.

Merwin and Hulbert .44 DA Army          $18.00
S&W New Model .44 No 3                    $17.50
Colts DA .44 and .45 revolvers              $18.00
English Frontier Defender DA .44          $7.50

You can get a nice SA with extras for the price of basic DA. I didnt bother listing the myriad of pocket models offered in .32, .38, and .44 most were DA's though. The price seemed to  depend more on quality rather than action type for instance a S&W single action .32 lists for $10.43 while a British Bulldog DA .32 lists for $2.93.

[Abilene]

The SAA is a good, reliable design, and accurate with the single action trigger.  Even percussion revolvers lasted far into settling the west, and were probably more prevalent than SAA's.  Yeah, selfcockers had their place, but if you had a good single action already, well if it ain't broke...

[willy]

Thanks for the input guys...But I think Doc Jackson nailed it...It had to be price,,Same reason people still used the cap and balls after cartridge guns came out,,,Might also be why Colt decided to come out with the open tops and conversions=CHEAPER than the 1873 .Not as good,,but cheaper..
Another reason might be ,,,(Ya go with what ya know)..A lot of vets coming out of the Civil War probably thought the SA revolver worked for them in war,,it gots to be good enough for street or house work..So when they went to cartridge guns ..It had to be a Single action..Sorta like the semi auto -v- double action revolver in the 70s and 80s..We had good semi auto pistols since the turn of the century,,But police didn't take to them until the 1980s in any big numbers.

[Doc Jackson]

To put it in context, muzzle loading shotguns were still being commonly sold well into the 1880's if not longer. Both brand new imported SxS's as well as converted muskets and rifles. Surplus smoothbore muskets in the original military configuration could be had for around $2.50 in the  mid 1880's. Many were shortened and half stocked for use as cheap farmers shotguns. These guns were still popular because they were really cheap and they worked well enough for the people who needed them.

[Tinker Pearce]

As has been pointed out double-actions were actually more common in civilian hands, but the army stuck with the single actions. I suspect there were a combination of factors in play there. that they were simple and easier to maintain and repair was almost certainly a factor. They had large stocks of .45 ammunition on-hand. The guns were not only a bit cheaper than a big-bore double-action, but they had already made the capital investment in them; much cheaper to keep what they had than to buy new.

It probably helped that Colt's double actions were awful guns. Bad trigger pulls, and with the locking taking place at the rear the cylinders quickly loosened up. I've never seen a Thunderer that wasn't sloppy as hell in terms of lock-up. The S&Ws were better, but the trigger pulls on the New Frontiers tended to be heavy and unpleasant.

Another thing to consider- people were trained to thumb-cock their revolver whether it was double-action or not well into the early 20th C.  In Police circles double-action was for contact-distance emergency use. Under normal circumstances the weapon was to be cocked manually. It wasn't until after WW1 that this began to change.

Good double actions were available; Webleys were sold in the US, especially their British Bulldog revolvers.  Everyone who tries my Webley RIC comments on how smooth the DA pull is, and the British Lion bulldog is comparable. I have a S&W .38 DA made in 1884, and the consensus is that the trigger pull is heavy but very nice. My .38 Safety Hammerless Smiths also have good triggers- good enough to keep all the bullets on the paper at 25 yards despite the very short barrels.

While many of the double-actions of the day were capable of good accuracy, I suspect it was felt they were for table-top distances- for serious work you wanted a proper gun- one that you could thumb-cock.

[St. George]

The 'real' Old West didn't unfold like a C&WAS shoot - there wasn't a gunfight at every turn, Stagecoaches didn't get robbed on schedule, Lawmen hardly ever had to face down anyone, and the Cavalry trooper of the time fought primarily with his carbine.

Handguns were merely tools - not toys for a fantasy 'sport' - be that sport IPSC, C&WAS or Zoot/Zombie shooting.

The military tested and adopted something that 'worked' and stayed with it - the public saw what the Government issued and followed suit - figuring that what the Army used had to be pretty reliable.

Percussions and Conversions abounded - they were cheapest, after all, and no one was 'tuning' them - they were just being carried by those who might need them as a part of their job - and often, firearms were supplied by the ranch - just like fencing tools.

Playing 'Woulda If They Coulda' is all well and good, but isn't borne out by the realities of the era.

Double actions were in use - heaviest use was with pocket revolvers - the belt guns were less robust by comparison - but even the pocket guns weren't 'used' - they were carried - big difference.

Pretty much any manufacturer here, or on the European continent sold his wares here, so availability was as easy as a mail order catalog, yet folks who needed something double-tough went with what was proven to work pretty much all of the time, and that was a Single Action Army, carried 'deep' in a Mexican Loop holster to best secure it and protect it - 'not' in some lined Buscadero rig suitable for Hoppy or Roy, and awaiting trouble.

Scouts Out!

[Drydock]

One thing that has not been mentioned: Black Powder.  In a large bore revolver, black powder fouling might make a DA trigger pull next to impossible, and certainly not accurate.  The single action hammer gives far more leverage to rotate a cylinder against fouling drag.  In addition, cleaning fouling from the more complex DA action in the field is far more problematic as well.  In a small caliber pocket gun this is not really a factor in brief close encounters, but in a sustained tactical firefight it would certainly be something to consider.

The development of DA actions in the BP cartridge era is fascinating, largely a succession of progressively  simpler mechanisms, doing the job with fewer, more rugged parts, until we get to the Webley and Bodeo actions, with only 6 and 5 moving parts respectively.  All to deal with stress and torque demands of heavy fouling.  THe barrel cylinder sealing of the Nagant revolver was perhaps the ultimate response to this need, only to become uneeded by the new smokeless powders.