Top Break "Cowboy" Revolvers

[Screwball]

I like having different firearm designs from across history... and I'm sort of looking for another revolver.

I was always drawn to that NAA Ranger, and can't wait until NAA brings it back (if it ever happens, I'll pair it up with my Sidewinder). Anyways, I started looking at Uberti replicas of the Schofield design.

I'm stuck on .45 Colt. I would like to have it cut for moonclips, so I could run .45 ACP through it. My Ruger New Vaquero is in .45 (a convertible, so can shoot either .45 Colt or ACP), and I have a Uberti 1860 Henry in the same caliber (steel frame). Got away from .38 with my 642-1 (converted to 9mm), and not interested in .44-40 or .44 Russian (I shoot a 629 in .44 Magnum... and never use Specials; won't use .44 Russian). Figured .45 Colt would be the best choice, since I already stock the ammo.

I do like the look of the Russian models, with that spur, but from what I've seen, the release is on the barrel half instead of the grip half. Also read that the profile of the grip/backstrap makes cocking the gun a little harder.

With the normal .45 versions, Uberti does a 7", 5", and 3.5" barrel with the blued guns. Not going nickel, as I had to bead blast my Ruger due to not wanting to keep up on the polished stainless. I usually go long with barrels, but don't think the 5" would be that bad. And to be honest, that 3.5" looks pretty cool.

I doubt I'll ever do CAS, but do want a revolver that I won't have to worry about. Just wanted to see if anyone had any experience with these... or similar guns from other companies.

Thanks for taking a look.

 

[DPris]

I'd forget the clip idea.
And for purposes of future discussions for you, the Schofield version is the only one that has the latch on the frame.

The guns are not all Schofields, more correct (again so you & people you discuss with will be on the same page) to say those top-breaks are all variations on the S&W #3 frame.
The Schofield's modification was designed by Schofield for one-handed opening, where the others are two-handers.

The Russian looks cool, but it's awkward in use, with a long thumb reach.

The 5 and 3.5-inch guns balance better & are obviously lighter.
The #3 is a heavy gun.
Denis

 

[Bob Wright]

I'm not too sure about the top-break revolvers, but I believe that cutting the cylinder for clips would leave too much headspace for the .45 Colt round? Or are those guns that well chambered that that would not matter?

Bob Wright

 

[Hal]

I'm stuck on .45 Colt. I would like to have it cut for moonclips, so I could run .45 ACP through it

.45 LC runs at 14,000 psi
.45 acp runs at 21,000 psi.

Probably not a wise idea to push a rather weak design that far.

 

[JoeSixpack]

Not trying to hijack.. well maybe a little
But does anyone still make these in 22lr?

Don't really see top breaks on the shelves.

 

[kraigwy]

I have a Traditional Arms Schofield in 45 LC. Top Brake Revolver. After about 25 rounds the lock (top) broke and they don't make the revolver any more so I cant get parts.

I like the Top Brake Revolvers. It was the first handgun I ever fired as a kid.

When my grandfather was about twelve he left home to work the ranches in Colorado. When he left his father (my great grandfather) gave him a Smith & Wesson Model 3 in 44 Russian. The revolver was passed down to my father, I have it now and it will go to my oldest kid. Its pretty accurate for a older gun, I shoot it every now and then in honor of my father and grandfather.

Like I said it was the first handgun I've shot. Maybe the first firearm. My father believed to keep kids from playing with guns, sneaking them out, was to enchourage us to shoot and if possible, let us shoot anytime we wanted to. That way he figured there was nothing exotic. No reason to sneak around.

Anyway, its quite a gun.

I discovered that velocity doesn't relate to accuracy in these type guns. It 44 Russian, though not a hot round is accurate. I also noticed that if I load my Ruger NV 45 LC light, it seems to be more accurate.

Even my 1911s, When I went to heavy bullets for bowling pins, loading 255 gr bullets about 600 fps, they are more accurate then full power.

All I shoot with these guns is paper or steel, so I need accuracy more then power. I have a Model 29 if I need power.

 

[Old Stony]

A good friend gave me one of the repos once in 45 Colt. I thought it was a really neat pistol until I took it out and shot it. It was opening occasionally when fired and we sent it back to have this fixed. When it came back, it would misfire often with very light hits on the primers...so we sent it back again to be fixed. When we got it back the third time, it was obvious some really cheesy gunsmithing had been done on it. They had ground down the hammer near the base of the firing pin to give it more protusion, and it was piercing almost all of the primers. After this, we got them to agree to replace it with a regular SAA and moved on. We accepted a replacement revolver that was priced considerably less then the one we returned.....deciding to suck it up and move on.
From the gitgo, it shot about a foot to the left from about 10 yds with no way to adjust it.
I have no further desire to own one of them.

 

[DPris]

I'd suspect yours was the ASM version from Cimarron?
Denis

 

[Old Stony]

Bingo !

 

[DPris]

Common problem with those, on the latch.
Cimarron lost some sizable money out of that fiasco.

The Ubertis have not had it.
Denis

 

[Jim Watson]

I read a favorable review of the ASM. Took three guns to get two that worked. Latches were fine. Barrels were crooked. Six months back in Italy with nothing resolved. Finally got a refund of wholesale price. Got a decent ASM SAA and moved on to a real No 3 New Model.

 

[DPris]

Mike Harvey of Cimarron bought tooling for ASM to exclusively produce the ASM breaktop for Cimarron.

Problems followed, most notably with the latch coming open under recoil.
There were other issues, the one I had had the mainspring bearing against something inside & had to be re-contoured.

Harvey told the Italians about the latch, they promised to address 'em.
Next shipment in had exactly the same problematic latch.

He got with ASM, said "Thought we discussed & you promised to correct."
They said "We did and we will. Just as soon as we use up all the old latches."

The ASM breaktop program folded not long after.
Cimarron had to write off a sizable investment in equipment & drop the guns.
Denis

 

[jackmoser65]

Gunblast has an article on a Navy Arms Schofield that was cut for moonclips. Seems pressure wasn't a concern and it didn't affect 45 colt use.

 

[reddog81]

Unless you're handloading light loads 45 ACP isn't a good idea and if you're handloading you might as well just do the correct rounds.

 

[Hal]

Gunblast has an article on a Navy Arms Schofield that was cut for moonclips. Seems pressure wasn't a concern and it didn't affect 45 colt use.

Good for them....

I'll stick with my initial feeling though.

I'm not shy about pushing things, but, when it comes down to putting a load that's running an additional 50% of it's intended pressure into something with a known weak design - - two feet from my face,,,,,,,,

 

[Screwball]

Haven't been posting in the thread, as I wanted to get more info on the design... and after researching it, plus the replies here, I decided against it. Might do a shorter barreled New Vaquero later down the line, as a second single-action. Thanks to everyone that posted.

 

[jackmoser65]

Good for them....

I'll stick with my initial feeling though.

I'm not shy about pushing things, but, when it comes down to putting a load that's running an additional 50% of it's intended pressure into something with a known weak design - - two feet from my face,,,,,,,,

I would normally agree but apparently the professional gunsmiths that do this conversion deem it safe. Just providing some corroboration for the idea.

 

[Hal]

Safety aside - - it's still putting a lot of stress on the gun, which I really doubt is going to enhance the gun's ability to last a long time....

Just because something can be done isn't always a reason it should be done.

 

[jackmoser65]

Maybe, maybe not. It would not be the first late 19th century design capable of handling the 45 acp. The gunsmiths decide if it can be done. The user decides if it should be done. You'd have to do a lot of shooting with one to find out if there was a problem with the former. I thought it was a good idea because you eject all empties at once, with zero chance of the extractor star popping over the 45 colt's narrow rim. Which happens and is a PITA. Reloading is a snap. Good for plinking with cheap ball ammo.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

I see the OP has already made his decision not to buy a Top Break, but I will chime in with a few opinions anyway.

Smith and Wesson built five separate models on the #3 sized Top Break frame; the American Model, the Russian Model, the Schofield, the New Model Number Three, and the 44 Double Action. Of the three, there are, or have recently been, 3 replicas made. The Russian Model, the Schofield, and the New Model Number Three.

I have originals of all three, and perhaps my comments about them will prove useful.

This is a 2nd Model Russian. It shipped in 1875. It is chambered for the 44 Russian cartridge. I only shoot it with ammunition loaded with Black Powder. For those interested in a replica, the Russian model is the one I recommend the least. You will note in the three photos that the hammer spurs of all of these revolvers point pretty much straight up. The configuration of the hammer and the grips makes the reach to the hammer spur longer on any S&W Top Break, original or replica, further than the reach to the hammer of a Colt Single Action Army. I can testify to this, having shot both many times.

But in addition to the longer reach, there is that doggone hump on the grip of the Russian. The Russians specified that grip shape, as well as the spur on the trigger guard. They wanted the hump (S&W calls it a knuckle) there to help control recoil, which it does very well. The gun absolutely does not rotate in the hand in recoil as a Colt does. The problem is, I have relatively big hands, but I cannot reach the hammer with my thumb if I keep my hand below the knuckle. I have to regrip to reach the hammer. This puts the sharp point of the knuckle in direct contact with the meaty part of my thumb. If I fire the gun like that, recoil drives the point into my hand and it hurts like the dickens, even with the relatively mild 44 Russian round. I can't imagine how much it would hurt firing a 45 Colt in a modern replica. So before I can shoot I have to regrip again, to get my hand below the knuckle again. All in all, with all the regripping, it makes for a pretty awkward shooting experience.

This is a 1st Model Schofield. It shipped in 1875 and was refinished at the factory in 1957. It is chambered for the original 45 Schofield cartridge. I only shoot it with ammunition loaded with Black Powder.

As has been previously stated, the Schofield was the only #3 Top Break to have the barrel latch mounted on the frame, courtesy of Colonel George Schofield. The grip shape of the Schofield is much more conducive to comfortable shooting, I can reach the hammer spur without regripping, although I usually allow recoil to rotate grip slightly in my hand, which makes reaching the hammer spur even easier.

This is a New Model Number Three. It shipped in 1882 and was refinished at the factory in 1965. It is chambered for the 44 Russian cartridge, and like all my Top Breaks I only shoot it with Black Powder.

The NM #3 was the epitome of Top Break design. You will notice that with each of these revolvers, the ejector housing under the barrel got shorter and shorter. That is because S&W was continually redesigning the ejector ratchet assembly, and the NM#3 has the most refined design. In my not so humble opinion, the grip shape is also the best of the three. The knuckle has been reduced to a manageable small hump, not dissimilar to the design of current S&W revolvers. I can reach the hammer without regripping at all. The NM#3 also had the refinement of a rebounding hammer. Because it is the most comfortable of all my #3 revolvers to shoot, it gets shot the most often.

Beretta, the parent company of Uberti, used to market a replica of the NM#3 called the Laramie. What looks to me to be the same revolver is currently being imported by Taylor's. They call it the New Model No. 3 Frontier. There are a couple of misnomers here, as is typical Taylor's is lumping their #3 frame replicas under the name Schofield, which is incorrect. All Schofields were #3s. Not all #3s were Schofields. Also, the original version of the NM #3 called the Frontier model was specifically chambered for 44-40. Uberti's replica is chambered for 45 Colt. Sorry, just had to point all that out.

http://www.taylorsfirearms.com/hand-guns/cartridge-revolvers/schofield-revolvers.html




Regarding moon clips for a Top Break, frankly I can't see the point. In their day the Top Breaks were much, much faster to reload than a Colt. With a Colt you must manually poke the empties out of the chambers one at a time, then you have to reload each chamber one at a time too. There was no way around it. Part of the revolutionary design of the S&W Top Breaks when they first showed up in 1869 was the automatic ejection feature. You broke the gun open and the extractor popped the empties out all at once. Then, while the gun was still open, you reloaded, the entire cylinder, before swinging the barrel up and latching it in place, and you were in business again. Much, much faster than reloading a Colt, trust me. Why in the world anybody thinks they need clips to make it even faster is beyond me. Is anybody going to really use one of these in a gunfight?

kraigwy: Nice New Model #3. It might interest you to know that these were very accurate guns. Records were set with some of the target models that still stand today. And yes, the highest velocity round is not always the most accurate.