Colt 1873 Model P versus other contemporary designs

[Crow Hunter]

This is more of an academic question than anything else.

Why was the Peacemaker the dominant handgun of it's time period (in the US)?

It seems to me that the S&W Model 3, with its much quicker loading/unloading would have been a more desirable weapon. From my research it seems that the S&W Model 3/Enfield type was more dominant in Europe.

While I have owned a number of Peacemaker copies including the most accurate handgun I have ever fired (Blackhawk .44 mag) and the only gun I wish I had never sold (Blackhawk .38/9mm conversion), I have never even held a S&W No. 3 or any of Colt's other contemporary competitors.

Why do you believe it was the most dominant design in the US during that time period?

[Deputy Dan]

The Colt SAA winning the 1872 Government service revolver trials probably had something to do with it.

[ImBroke]

Deputy Dan is right judging by that show on the SAA that was on the outdoor channel. The S&W was also available at the time and in use by the US military but it fired a slightly less powerful .S&W round. You could fire the S&W round in the Colt SAA, but couldn't fire the .45 Colt round in the S&W. Another reason was the durability and complexity of the S&W frame/action.

[Crow Hunter]

The Colt SAA winning the 1872 Government service revolver trials probably had something to do with it.

It wasn't only dominant in US military circles, it was also very prevalent in the hands of citizens as well.

So you think it was just reputation/word of mouth? Basically if it is good enough for *blank* it should be good enough for me mindset.

Do you feel that is why there is such a prevalence of Glock/AR in the hands of so many people today?

Sounds plausible.

Why did Europe go the other way? Because Russia bought the No 3 so early in the game?

[Deputy Dan]

Some people just want to touch the magic... the SAA is a tangible link to the past and U.S. Military history.

I have seen far more fireable Gen 1 SAAs then S&W #3s, Merwin and Hulbert, Iver Johnson, etc. contemporary revolvers. The metalurgy back then is not what it is now, and a solid frame revolver design is far stronger than the break top Smith... I'd like to see what the mean time between failure is between those two competing systems (SAA vs. S&W #3)

As to the European question, I will let those far more educated on that subject answer that one.

[Crow Hunter]

I have seen far more fireable Gen 1 SAAs then S&W #3s, Merwin and Hulbert, Iver Johnson, etc. contemporary revolvers. The metalurgy back then is not what it is now, and a solid frame revolver design is far stronger than the break top Smith... I'd like to see what the mean time between failure is between those two competing systems (SAA vs. S&W #3)



Is that more of a function of their durability or the disparity in numbers purchased in the US.

I figure there are probably more working S&W No. 3 in Russia than Colt Peacemakers, but I have no way of verifying that.

Just from a purely academic standpoint it seems that the top break revolvers would have some advantages over the single load/unload of the Colt pattern guns.

But I have never actually even handled one of the top breaks (other than my old pellet pistol:rolleyes:) so it is just speculation on my part and once reading about Mas Ayoob "gaming" the SASS rules by using a S&W Model 3 and some handmade speed loaders that gave him a tremendous advantage. Seems like it might be something that could have been developed back then as well.

Of course, from historical reading it doesn't sound like quick reloads were considered. Usually it seemed to be a "New York Reload" if it came to needing more than what was available in the weapon.

But that makes me wonder if that was the preference of if it was just an adaptation to the primary weapon available.

I just find it interesting that the Colt Peacemaker is the most prevalent weapon in the US while in Britain/Russia the top break revolver was more popular.

I think that would be a very interesting history research paper to delve into the differences.

[dewatters]

There were some nifty patents for S&W No. 3 speedloaders. My favorite is a Rollin White-designed belt rig that held multiple reloads back to back. You cracked open the frame, and pressed the cylnder against the rig until it released a cylinder-full. Shoot six, and repeat.

[Coal Dragger]

The Colt was, and is more simple, and more robust than the S&W Model 3.

The Colt has an advantage particularly where ejection is concerned. Remember when we start considering black powder cartridges, sometimes with copper cases ejection can get sticky from fouling and from expansion of the case material. Given two clean, perfectly functioning revolvers with good ammo loaded with smokeless powder, in brass cases and the S&W has the advantage. However, those were not realistic operating conditions in 1872 or so, hell smokeless powder was still around 20 years away at that point.

The Colt fired a more powerful round, or at least could, yet was a smaller dimensioned revolver. A S&W Model 3 is rather large and clunky, and the grip frame is oddly shaped in comparison to the Colt. The Colt points better (for me at least) than the one or two S&W Model 3 or Schoffield replicas that I have seen.

The Colt with its solid top strap, and non hinging frame is just strait up stronger than the S&W.

[Deputy Dan]

I would say durability...Let's look at the numbers of firearms produced 1870-1900.

Colt produced a little more than 500,000 SAA revolvers in that 30 year period.

S&W Produced 1.25 Million break top revolvers of all models in those 30 years.

How many S&W Top Breaks do you see for sale that still time correctly?

As far as reloading speed, it is a wash. It is a theoretical advantage. Shoot the S&W the way they did in 1870 and tell me if there was an advantage.

PS... Screw Massad Ayoob. I have more time on the shitter then he has in his entire law enforcement career. He has parlayed a part time police gig into a micro empire far beyond his real world experience.

ETA -If you want an honest comparison, you need to operate both platforms in the original manual of arms.

[Crow Hunter]

The Colt was, and is more simple, and more robust than the S&W Model 3.

The Colt has an advantage particularly where ejection is concerned. Remember when we start considering black powder cartridges, sometimes with copper cases ejection can get sticky from fouling and from expansion of the case material. Given two clean, perfectly functioning revolvers with good ammo loaded with smokeless powder, in brass cases and the S&W has the advantage. However, those were not realistic operating conditions in 1872 or so, hell smokeless powder was still around 20 years away at that point.

The Colt fired a more powerful round, or at least could, yet was a smaller dimensioned revolver. A S&W Model 3 is rather large and clunky, and the grip frame is oddly shaped in comparison to the Colt. The Colt points better (for me at least) than the one or two S&W Model 3 or Schoffield replicas that I have seen.

The Colt with its solid top strap, and non hinging frame is just strait up stronger than the S&W.

I haven't fired black powder handguns before and the muzzleloaders that I have fired weren't mine so I didn't have to clean them.

I hadn't really thought about the residue but that really does make sense. It wouldn't be any faster to eject if you had to manually pick 1/2 the cartridge cases out with your finger tips.

I definitely could see how it would be an advantage for the Colt in those conditions. Why did the Russians/British pick break action types?


I would say durability...Let's look at the numbers of firearms produced 1870-1900.

Colt produced a little more than 500,000 SAA revolvers in that 30 year period.

S&W Produced 1.25 Million break top revolvers of all models in those 30 years.

How many S&W Top Breaks do you see for sale that still time correctly?

As far as reloading speed, it is a wash. It is a theoretical advantage. Shoot the S&W the way they did in 1870 and tell me if there was an advantage.

PS... Screw Massad Ayoob. I have more time on the shitter then he has in his entire law enforcement career. He has parlayed a part time police gig into a micro empire far beyond his real world experience.

ETA -If you want an honest comparison, you need to operate both platforms in the original manual of arms.

I have honestly never even seen a S&W top break of any vintage or even a replica. :eek: But I have seen a couple of Colt 1st gens, but I didn't get to play with them. It would be interesting to have someone run a test with some replicas and black powder to see if there really is an advantage or not. Ayoob is the only person I have ever seen even write about shooting a top break revolver, much less shooting one in competition and he did have an extreme "advantage" according to his article.

Being that I only have experience with Ruger Single Sixes/Vaqueros/Blackhawks and knowing the advantage that a quick reload gives someone shooting an automatic, I just got to thinking last night (since I couldn't sleep) about why the Colt Peacemaker was so dominant.

Actually I was thinking about getting up and looking to see if I could find any of the convertible 9mm/38 Blackhawks in stock to I could get another one. I just kind of drifted into the S&W vs Colt since I didn't want to wake my wife up.:D

[Deputy Dan]

You might have an "extreme" advantage as cited by the legendary Mas Ayoob :rolleyes:... until the frame stretches.

Then you are S.O.L.

Top break revolvers are extinct for a reason... it is an inherently weaker design than solid frame revolvers. All top breaks stretch their frames, there is nothing that can be done about it. Most of the original top breaks were fired to the point where they were a total constructive loss and discarded.

[Coal Dragger]

I haven't fired black powder handguns before and the muzzleloaders that I have fired weren't mine so I didn't have to clean them.

I hadn't really thought about the residue but that really does make sense. It wouldn't be any faster to eject if you had to manually pick 1/2 the cartridge cases out with your finger tips.

I definitely could see how it would be an advantage for the Colt in those conditions. Why did the Russians/British pick break action types?



Beats me why the Russians and the British went with top break revolvers. Probably the theoretical improvement in ease of extraction/ejection of spent shells and reloading, versus the loss of strength and less powerful rounds.

I would venture a guess that unlike the US Army neither the Russians, nor the British had spent any significant amount of time using handguns to fight with in adverse conditions at that time. The British in particular had trouble with their first top break revolver the Enfield MK I/II having extraction issues due to an overly complicated mechanism and fouling. The Webley was much more reliable, but it should be noted that the Webley had a very short span of using black powder before the .455 Webley was switched over to cordite which was cleaner burning.

Let's not forget the fact that the US Army back then, and now, was an institution that didn't like change very much. Look how long they stuck with the Trapdoor Springfield which was not only outdated when designed, but weak and generally pointless. So they liked the simplicity and ruggedness of the Colt 1873, probably mostly the simplicity and similarity to previous Colt revolvers in grip shape and operation with cartridge conversions.

Then there is the issue of the .45 Colt round, and the requirements of the US Army versus other militaries of the time. For some reason back in the day the US Army wanted sidearms that could actually take the fight out of someone, and the .45 Colt was about the most powerful revolver you could find at the time. I have read somewhere, but cannot find reference to requirements that the round needed to be capable of stopping cavalry horses.

[Deputy Dan]

One last thought... Speed loaders for the S&W top breaks didn't exist contemporaneously for a reason we have forgotten. Metallic cartridges were "speed loading" compared to percussion revolvers... which far outnumbered metallic cartridge revolvers in the early 1870's.

[John Hearne]

the .45 Colt was about the most powerful revolver you could find at the time. I have read somewhere, but cannot find reference to requirements that the round needed to be capable of stopping cavalry horses.

I believe it was Michael Bane who said the design spec was the ability to kill a horse at 200 yards.

[Crow Hunter]

I have read somewhere, but cannot find reference to requirements that the round needed to be capable of stopping cavalry horses.

I remember reading that in reference to the 1911 and the.45 ACP as well and that it was originally developed as a calvary arm. I don't remember where I read that either.

I wish I knew someone who owned a top break that I could try out. It might be obvious if you shoot it in person.

John Hearne, I didn't realize you were from Ponotoc! My wife is from Boonevegas, I go down there all the time. You don't happen to have a test firing range down there do you?:D

[Deputy Dan]

Look up the Thompson-LaGarde Tests of 1904... it will shed some light into the thought process of the military on wound ballistics more than a century ago, and wouldn't be too far off the mark for the 1870's.

[Z71]

The handgun market back in the day wasn't a lot different than today. The choice of sidearms available being quite numerous.

The Colt SSA seems like it's the hands-down choice..however a huge part of that misconception stems from the SSA remaining in production to this day from a dozen companys!!

There were many older tech percussian revolvers left-over from the Civil War..some converted to cartridge and some not..the Remingtons remained in production until the mid 1870's and Colt using leftover percussian revover parts to manufacture new cartridge guns for years...

Colt also competed with itself with various double-action revolvers. Smith&Wesson and Remington...Hopkins&Allen..and a few other quality domestic handgun makers all vied for the market with large-bore and smallbore handguns.

Then you had the foreign revolvers..both high quality and cheap/cheesy guns. Many of these imported and sold.

It boils down to the fact that many..many brands/makes/calibers of handguns 'won the west'...however the Colt SSA(like the 1911) survived the test of time and earned a loyal following...literaly becoming 'legendary'...prolly being the most prolific gun used in Hollywood westerns ever having more to do with the Colt SSA popularity than anything else.

Colt being the most succesful of the early revolver makers and owning the main patents gave them a headstart...plus they turned out a high quality product in a time when a lot of junk was being made.

From a technology veiwpoint..the Colt SSA was really never cutting-edge technology...but it was a good revolver for the times.

[falnovice]

Regarding Colt vs Smith and Wesson, it was my understanding that Smith lost out on local sales because their production was tied up with the Russian contract for so long. They didn't push the design, and with relatively few out there it wasn't as though people knew they existed.
Meanwhile Colt came along with a new design, pushed some heavy marketing that actually put the gun into peoples hands and had great luck with it. It certainly didn't hurt that Colt was a household name already.