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) 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. 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.