The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Revolver Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 4, 2017, 04:24 PM   #26
Siggy-06
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 2, 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,148
Yeah look into getting a remake by Cimarron or Umberti.
__________________
Flicks just like a lighter, just a different kind of fire.
Siggy-06 is offline  
Old July 4, 2017, 08:19 PM   #27
Armybrat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 10, 2009
Location: Round Rock, Texas
Posts: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawg View Post
That doesn't look anything like a Lightening. All it is is a 73 with birdshead grips.
That is a Lightning birdshead grip which is distinctive from the standard birdsheads that don't have the "hump" at the top.

I didn't say it was a lookalike, just the closest thing to an original. Did say it was a SA, not a DA like the original, and that makes for a very different lower frame & trigger guard shape.

Anyway, the Cimarron is a cool gun.
Armybrat is offline  
Old July 6, 2017, 11:23 AM   #28
Model12Win
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2012
Posts: 5,854
Why not a top break Uberto gun? They seem to get good marks on the review sights.
Model12Win is offline  
Old July 6, 2017, 12:10 PM   #29
Driftwood Johnson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2014
Location: Land of the Pilgrims
Posts: 2,032
It's spelled Uberti guys.

The OP says he does not want a S&W Top Break. No idea why.

Avoid at all costs the earlier ASM Schofields. Lots of problems with them. Uberti is the only company making replicas of the S&W Top Breaks today, Cimarron is an importer, they don't make anything.

As I may or may not have said elsewhere in this thread, the modern reproductions by Uberti; their Schofield, Russian, and New Model #3 revolvers, are good guns. They perform fine with modern Smokeless powder ammunition. However because of certain design changes, they do not perform well with Black Powder and tend to bind up quickly.
Driftwood Johnson is offline  
Old July 6, 2017, 12:42 PM   #30
Model12Win
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2012
Posts: 5,854
I wish someone made a Merlin Hulbert repro but it would be impossible due to the hand fit and finish needed to make one. The cylinder on the real ones have a suction action due to being fitted so superbly. I have read a modern repro would cost several thousand dollars so it will never happen, much like a new Colt python.
Model12Win is offline  
Old July 6, 2017, 01:06 PM   #31
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,483
There was an outfit claiming to be tooling up to make M&H revolvers, but they got no further than some 3D modeling, and eventually faded away.
Jim Watson is offline  
Old July 6, 2017, 01:36 PM   #32
Model12Win
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2012
Posts: 5,854
You'd think with investment casting and CNC they'd be able to do it. But I have heard there is no way to equal the hand fitting with such machines, I don't know.
Model12Win is offline  
Old July 6, 2017, 02:03 PM   #33
SIGSHR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 4,700
If you can disassemble and reassemble a Colt Lightning and keep your cool you can call yourself a gunsmith.
SIGSHR is offline  
Old July 6, 2017, 06:56 PM   #34
McShooty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2012
Location: Northern Missouri
Posts: 480
Driftwood +++++++. Beautiful New No. 3. Great way to go for shooting 19th Cent revolvers. 44 Russian is great and easy to load. Shooter grade New No. 3s can be found (takes a little luck) and are among the least costly of large frame Smiths.
McShooty is offline  
Old July 6, 2017, 08:24 PM   #35
James K
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
Hi, Driftwood,

M&H seems to have taken two approaches on "selective ejection" - in some guns (like .44-40) the made the gun to fit the cartridge. In some of their .32 and .38 revolvers they had cartridges made to work with the gun and the "standard" (i.e., S&W caliber) cartridges are too short for the ejection (falling away) to work as designed.

In any case, the idea, though touted by M&H, seldom works as intended, even with the correct case and cartridge lengths. Yet another reason, I suspect, why the idea never caught on. I once had a discussion of the action with a gentleman who claimed that if the M&H was reproduced, it would be a big seller. After he actually fired one of mine (a .38), something he had never done, he decided that a repro probably would not sell and gave up the idea.

As pointed out, some of the so-called repros of older guns are actually plain single action repro Colts - the changes to make them look different are purely cosmetic.

Jim
James K is offline  
Old July 6, 2017, 08:31 PM   #36
Model12Win
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2012
Posts: 5,854
I'd love one of the "Army model" ones with the "skull crushed" grip and black stocks and chrome plating!! Those looks SO good!! I wish Uberti, Pietta, Pedersoli, Ardessa, Investarms, Euroarms, SOMEBODY ANYBODY would come out with a repro for under $1500 that was well made quality wise and as authentic as possible. I'd buy one in a heartbeat!!
Model12Win is offline  
Old July 6, 2017, 09:47 PM   #37
Driftwood Johnson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2014
Location: Land of the Pilgrims
Posts: 2,032
Quote:
I wish someone made a Merlin Hulbert repro but it would be impossible due to the hand fit and finish needed to make one. The cylinder on the real ones have a suction action due to being fitted so superbly. I have read a modern repro would cost several thousand dollars so it will never happen, much like a new Colt python.
Quote:
There was an outfit claiming to be tooling up to make M&H revolvers, but they got no further than some 3D modeling, and eventually faded away.
Quote:
You'd think with investment casting and CNC they'd be able to do it. But I have heard there is no way to equal the hand fitting with such machines, I don't know.
Quote:
I'd love one of the "Army model" ones with the "skull crushed" grip and black stocks and chrome plating!! Those looks SO good!! I wish Uberti, Pietta, Pedersoli, Ardessa, Investarms, Euroarms, SOMEBODY ANYBODY would come out with a repro for under $1500 that was well made quality wise and as authentic as possible. I'd buy one in a heartbeat!!

Howdy Again

Yes, there was an outfit a few years ago that was attempting to make a reproduction of the Merwin Hulbert revolvers. Yes, they did not get much further than making up 3D models in the computer and posting renderings of the 3D models on several gun boards. They did actually get as far as making up some parts, and showing them at some big gun shows to drum up some business. The problem was they were underfunded. It takes A LOT of money to start up a business and bring out a completely new product. They were seriously underfunded, so they took deposits on prospective orders to move the project forward. When it eventually went bust, it looked like a lot of excited, prospective customers were going to lose their money. Eventually the debt was bought by another company, and the deposits were repaid, but the project stalled there.

I suppose since I own a few of them, I have the luxury of debunking the myths about the Merwin Hulbert. Most of the claptrap about how precise they were, and how nobody else could make one was just that. Claptrap. Baloney. These myths get passed on because unlike Colt, and S&W, and Winchester, and any other gun company you can name, there is only one authoritative book published on the subject, The Story of Merwin Hulbert & Co. Firearms, by Art Phelps.






In his book, Phelps describes how incredibly precise and advanced the MH design was, and since he was the only one standing in bully pulpit, nobody has contradicted him, instead the myths he started get repeated over and over again until everyone and their brother believes them and repeats them to anybody who will listen.

The simple fact is, Merwin came up with the unusual design of rotating the barrel and pulling it forward to reload because Smith & Wesson controlled all the patents for Top Breaks at the time. So Merwin had to come up with a different system if he was going to sell guns.

Regarding that business about the suction of the cylinder, all it is is the center hole in the cylinder was toleranced very tightly to the arbor it rode on. No big deal, you just tolerance the hole so it is about .001 larger in diameter than the arbor. Then if you quickly open the gun, and let go of the barrel, the suction will try to pull the cylinder and barrel back again. Big deal! It only happens because nobody else tried to make such a crazy design. I have three of them, and the 'suction' feature is gone on two of them, because over time the arbor and the hole have worn enough so the fit is not so tight anymore. On one, the 'suction' feature is still there a little bit, because the gun is not quite so worn.






Same with the 'incredible precision' of the rotating joint between the frame and the barrel. All it took was some clever fixturing, so the joints could be cut by rotating the parts around the center of the cylinder axis. Very clever, yes, but not really earthshaking. It's just because nobody else was doing it that it gets so much attention.








Stop and think about it for a moment. Who was actually making these revolver? Hopkins and Allen, who were known for inexpensive, relatively crude firearms. If an outfit like Hopkins and Allen could make these guns, just how precise could they have been? I have always maintained that if S&W had been interested, they could have made the MH design with their eyes closed. They just weren't interested, because they already had a better mouse trap. By the way, if you open up the sideplate of a single action MH, and compare the mechanism to the mechanism of a S&W of the same time period, you will be amazed that they were identical in design and function. But the workmanship was much better inside the S&W gun than the MH.

Which gets me to the last point, and why I think S&W was making a better gun, hands down than Merwin Hulbert. Everybody always says how clever the MH system was for opening the gun and dumping the empties. What they neglect to tell you is you cannot reload the gun while it is open. Absolutely cannot be done because of the 'extractor ring' that pulls the empties out of the chambers. Nobody mentions that to reload you have to close the gun and reload one chamber at a time through a loading gate, not much different than a Colt. Whereas with a Smith, you break it open, dump out the empties, and reload while the gun is still open, then snap it closed to keep shooting.

Funny how nobody ever mentions that.

Don't get me wrong, the Merwin Hulbert is a fascinating revolver, and I am extremely lucky to own three of them, but don't believe the myths that Art Phelps perpetrated about them.

The bottom line is, the Merwin Hulberts were an interesting design, but there simply is not enough demand to be producing them again. If there were, you can bet they would be expensive. Uberti reproductions of S&W #3 revolvers go for a tad more than $1000. Do you think anybody could make a niche revolver like the MH for less?

Last edited by Driftwood Johnson; July 7, 2017 at 09:35 AM.
Driftwood Johnson is offline  
Old July 6, 2017, 10:13 PM   #38
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,126
The Modèle 1892 revolver.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le_1892_revolver

Gun Broker has these in the 400 price range.
Originally loaded with black powder, by WWI they used smokeless for the 8mm round.

I've had the chance to handle more than one and they were well made and solid.
The 8mm cartridge is a bit pricey, but you can resize .32-20 cases according to this article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8mm_French_Ordnance

And of course if you want an 1800's design you could always opt for the Nagant 1895
Buzzcook is offline  
Old July 7, 2017, 01:15 AM   #39
TruthTellers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 22, 2016
Posts: 3,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Driftwood Johnson
Which gets me to the last point, and why I think S&W was making a better gun, hands down than Merwin Hulbert. Everybody always says how clever the MH system was for opening the gun and dumping the empties. What they neglect to tell you is you cannot reload the gun while it is open. Absolutely cannot be done because of the 'extractor ring' that pulls the empties out of the chambers. Nobody mentions that to reload you have to close the gun and reload one chamber at a time through a loading gate, not much different than a Colt. Whereas with a Smith, you break it open, dump out the empties, and reload while the gun is still open, then snap it closed to keep shooting.
Thanks for the post Drift, a treasure trove of information as always.

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.

Then there's the double action Merwin's that, I guess from all that I'm reading here, were probably better and more robust than the Colt 1877 and 78's.
__________________
"We always think there's gonna be more time... then it runs out."
TruthTellers is offline  
Old July 7, 2017, 01:19 AM   #40
TruthTellers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 22, 2016
Posts: 3,878
Quote:
The Modèle 1892 revolver...

And of course if you want an 1800's design you could always opt for the Nagant 1895.
Would rather go Nagant, I have an affinity for Russian military guns of the late 19th Century thru to the mid 20th.

But my original thought was to get something American made. My mind is more set on the Merwin Hulberts for their design and operation and M1892 for it's dubious military history.
__________________
"We always think there's gonna be more time... then it runs out."
TruthTellers is offline  
Old July 7, 2017, 09:34 AM   #41
Driftwood Johnson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2014
Location: Land of the Pilgrims
Posts: 2,032
Quote:
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.

Driftwood Johnson is offline  
Old July 7, 2017, 09:58 AM   #42
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,374
"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.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old July 7, 2017, 12:53 PM   #43
Driftwood Johnson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2014
Location: Land of the Pilgrims
Posts: 2,032
Quote:
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.
Driftwood Johnson is offline  
Old July 7, 2017, 03:23 PM   #44
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,374
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.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old July 7, 2017, 08:28 PM   #45
Driftwood Johnson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2014
Location: Land of the Pilgrims
Posts: 2,032
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.
Driftwood Johnson is offline  
Reply

Tags
19th century revolvers , colt , merwin hulbert

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.11847 seconds with 10 queries