In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Why not a new break top revolver?
knightrider
Member Posts: 450 ✭✭✭
I think someone posted this sometime back or it was another site, but why doesn't S&W or Ruger release a new break top revolver? Some state because it would not be strong enough. If the Webley 455 is strong enough to handle 45 ACP why not make another break top?
Comments
Bill
S&W did produce a limited number of new models (if I may use that term of reference) of their old Schofield revolver as late as only four or five years ago. I believe the revolver, a reprise of the old Schofield was not exactly true to the original old gun of the late 1870s-1880s(?) due to S&W beefing up the new gun here and there to handle today's ammunition. The new gun was, as I recall, produced only in caliber .45 Long Colt (not sure of that). However, I believe it is now out of production.
I like the Schofield very much. It was waaaay ahead of it's time when it was introduced. The gun will auto-eject all the empties when broken open, or flip a little switch and it would not eject them. It is quicker to load than the SAA and (some won't believe this) had a speedloader similar to those you see today to load all the chambers at once. In fact, only the foolish arrogance, greed or whatever of S&W kept it from being THE sidearm of the US Army. S&W insisted on producing the gun so it would only fire their own proprietary .45 caliber cartridge, which in essence killed the deal for the military. The military bought some of the S&W Schofield guns, but never in any quantity, standardizing instead with the Colt's model SAA in caliber .45 Long Colt.
Uberti makes a reproduction of the Schofield revolver today in various calibers. I think the Uberti reproduction is quite nice and fills the bill nicely for a large caliber top-break revolver.
My reply to a poster several months ago:
S&W company reproduction-called by S&W the Schofield model 2000 (comes with first model latch)
Plusses..original length frame/cylinder. S&W company name on revolver.
Minuses..chambered for .45 Schofield (the shorter cartridge). Factory Loads are weak for use in originals safely. Hammer block safety. Internals not true to original. 7" barrel only. Generally considerably more expensive than item listed below.
Non S&W [Italian-Uberti] reproduction (comes with 3rd model latch)
Plusses..chambered for .45 Colt (the longer cartridge). Can use brand-name standard pressure loads, as well as weaker cowboy loads. No hammer block safety. Internal parts closer to original. 31/2"/5"/7" barrels available. Generally considerably less expensive than item listed above.
Minuses..Cylinder/frame slightly (very slightly) longer than original. Not very noticeable to the buyer.
Hope this helps. Joe
Besides caliber diferance, the main reason the U.S. Army didn't choose the top break Smith was all of the intricrite parts inside of the gun, they were built like a fine watch, and well beyond the capabilities of the average horse soldier to repair in the field. A Colt SAA on the otherhand, is fairly simple to keep in running order. I beleave this was the main reason the Colt was the choice of the board of testing.
For what it's worth.
W.D.
When TV was running westerns a lot there was a show called Trackdown with Robert Culp portraying a bounty hunter named Hobie Gilman.
Being a kid who had no money and loved firearms I picked up on one of the scenes where Hobie was cleaning his revolver. I flipped out as it appeared to be a .44 Russian and at that time it was considered one of the most balanced handguns of it's time