1858 Pale Rider Hot Swapping

[hawg]

I’m going to try to get good at Hot Swapping! better buy some spare parts, the Hand part is going to get dinged up! my new 58 is new and tight

Not if you do it right. If you put the hammer on half cock the cylinder only comes out and goes back in on the right side and takes a little fudging to get it back in. If you just pull the hammer back a little bit the bolt and hand both will be retracted and the cylinder will fall in or out from either side. At least that works with Pietta's, I don't see why it wouldn't work with Uberti's.

 

[hawg]

what did Indiana Jones carry?

S&W M1917.

 

[Mark_Mark]

Not if you do it right. If you put the hammer on half cock the cylinder only comes out and goes back in on the right side and takes a little fudging to get it back in. If you just pull the hammer back a little bit the bolt and hand both will be retracted and the cylinder will fall in or out from either side. At least that works with Pietta's, I don't see why it wouldn't work with Uberti's.

Pietta’s are $125 cheaper than Uberti. I’ll get one next month to mess around with!

 

[Mark_Mark]

I experimented with this years ago here was my attempt.

You and Clint Eastwood from the 60’s should have a gunfight. I think you got him

 

[hawg]

You and Clint Eastwood from the 60’s should have a gunfight. I think you got him

NOOOOO!!!! Say it ain't so.

 

[LaneP]

I experimented with this years ago here was my attempt.

Nice! You couldn't do anything like that with an open top. And no cap jams!

 

[StrawHat]

what did Indiana Jones carry?

Jones carried two similar revolvers. One was a modified S&W Model 1917 and the other was a modified S&W 455 Second Model Hand Ejector. They have been written up on many different forums and discussed at length. One was auctioned off recently, if I am recalling correctly.

Kevin

 

[MtnHiker]

I remember reading the pony express riders carried a spare cylinder.

https://truewestmagazine.com/got-a-spare/


It seems the carrying of spare magazine today for semi autos is an extension of earlier practices.

 

[hawg]

One pony express rider said he did but he carried a Paterson. Before Colt started putting loading levers on them Paterson's did come with a spare cylinder. A few cased sets of later percussion revolvers had a spare cylinder. The cased set of Remingtons with extra cylinders in the link have cartridge cylinders. Back in the day everything was hand fit. There was no guarantee that just any cylinder would function in any revolver. Other than the aforesaid pony express rider there is no written record of anybody using spare cylinders. There's no factory records of revolvers other than cased sets having spare cylinders. There's no photographic evidence and in the case of the Civil War there is no archaeological evidence. I'm not saying it didn't happen at all but if and I say if it did there were very, very few cases.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Jones carried two similar revolvers. One was a modified S&W Model 1917 and the other was a modified S&W 455 Second Model Hand Ejector. They have been written up on many different forums and discussed at length. One was auctioned off recently, if I am recalling correctly.

Howdy

Smith and Wesson Model 1917.






S&W 455 Hand Ejector 2nd Model.






Both revolvers are variations of the S&W 44 Hand Ejector, 2nd Model. The 44 Hand Ejector 1st Model or New Century, was also known as the Triple Lock. Produced from 1907 until 1915, the Triple Lock got its nickname from the 3rd latch in the frame used to secure the yoke in place. This was the first revolver to chamber the brand new 44 Special Cartridge.






Here is a view of the spring plungers in the barrel shroud. The one at the bottom is the 'third latch'.






The '3rd latch' engaged a hardened steel insert in the yoke, when the yoke was swung shut.






A number of Triple Locks chambered for the British 455 Mark II cartridge were shipped to Britain in 1914-1915. However the British objected to the arrangement of the ejector rod being housed in a shroud under the barrel, fearing mud and other foreign materials in the field would jam the ejector mechanism.

In 1915 S&W ceased production of the Triple Lock, replacing it with the 44 Hand Ejector 2nd Model. This model lacked the distinctive 3rd latch, and there was no shroud under the barrel to jam with mud. The 3rd latch was expensive to produce, and S&W never made one again. The price of a standard Triple Lock was $21, eliminating the 3rd latch brought the cost of a standard 44 HE down to $19.

The Model 1917 was a variation of the 2nd Model, chambered for 45 ACP, as can be seen in the photo above. This one has the standard 5 1/2" barrel. Apparently the one Indy used had the barrel shortened to 4".

The 455 HE he used also had the barrel shortened to 4".

It is perhaps interesting to note that the 455 HE in the photo above is marked 44 Special on the barrel. This particular revolver shipped to Canada in 1916. At some point it was sent back to the factory and a 44 Special cylinder and barrel were fitted to it. This was common with the various 455 Hand Ejectors, many were sent back to the US and converted to fire 45 Colt or 44 Special.

*******************************************

I hope the moderators will forgive me for delving into Smokeless powder revolvers on this page. My only valid excuse is when the 44 Special cartridge was introduced in 1908 it was originally loaded with Black Powder.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Not if you do it right. If you put the hammer on half cock the cylinder only comes out and goes back in on the right side and takes a little fudging to get it back in. If you just pull the hammer back a little bit the bolt and hand both will be retracted and the cylinder will fall in or out from either side. At least that works with Pietta's, I don't see why it wouldn't work with Uberti's.

In my experience, always put the hammer on half cock and always remove it or replace it from the right side of the frame.

It helps to rotate the cylinder slightly clockwise while reinserting it into the frame. This causes the cylinder ratchet teeth to push the hand back into the frame, so the hand is not damaged while inserting the cylinder.

This works with both my old EuroArms (Armi San Paolo) and Uberti Remmies.

 

[Speedo66]

new Cylinders or new gun! lol

View attachment 1099297 View attachment 1099298

But not both, I've read the conversion cylinder companies recommend not using brass framed guns.

 

[Mark_Mark]

But not both, I've read the conversion cylinder companies recommend not using brass framed guns.

it’s $230 for a complete gun, worth 2x that in parts and shipping

 

[Mark_Mark]

Howdy

Smith and Wesson Model 1917.

View attachment 1099366




S&W 455 Hand Ejector 2nd Model.

View attachment 1099367




Both revolvers are variations of the S&W 44 Hand Ejector, 2nd Model. The 44 Hand Ejector 1st Model or New Century, was also known as the Triple Lock. Produced from 1907 until 1915, the Triple Lock got its nickname from the 3rd latch in the frame used to secure the yoke in place. This was the first revolver to chamber the brand new 44 Special Cartridge.

View attachment 1099368




Here is a view of the spring plungers in the barrel shroud. The one at the bottom is the 'third latch'.

View attachment 1099369




The '3rd latch' engaged a hardened steel insert in the yoke, when the yoke was swung shut.

View attachment 1099370




A number of Triple Locks chambered for the British 455 Mark II cartridge were shipped to Britain in 1914-1915. However the British objected to the arrangement of the ejector rod being housed in a shroud under the barrel, fearing mud and other foreign materials in the field would jam the ejector mechanism.

In 1915 S&W ceased production of the Triple Lock, replacing it with the 44 Hand Ejector 2nd Model. This model lacked the distinctive 3rd latch, and there was no shroud under the barrel to jam with mud. The 3rd latch was expensive to produce, and S&W never made one again. The price of a standard Triple Lock was $21, eliminating the 3rd latch brought the cost of a standard 44 HE down to $19.

The Model 1917 was a variation of the 2nd Model, chambered for 45 ACP, as can be seen in the photo above. This one has the standard 5 1/2" barrel. Apparently the one Indy used had the barrel shortened to 4".

The 455 HE he used also had the barrel shortened to 4".

It is perhaps interesting to note that the 455 HE in the photo above is marked 44 Special on the barrel. This particular revolver shipped to Canada in 1916. At some point it was sent back to the factory and a 44 Special cylinder and barrel were fitted to it. This was common with the various 455 Hand Ejectors, many were sent back to the US and converted to fire 45 Colt or 44 Special.

*******************************************

I hope the moderators will forgive me for delving into Smokeless powder revolvers on this page. My only valid excuse is when the 44 Special cartridge was introduced in 1908 it was originally loaded with Black Powder.

44 special is OLD! didn’t realize that. I heard .44 smokeless is a very good defense round

 

[hawg]

In my experience, always put the hammer on half cock and always remove it or replace it from the right side of the frame.

Why not do it an easier way when there is one that involves no finagling?

 

[Jim Watson]

Here is a screen shot of Clint's revolver. I always assumed it was a modern replica that had been modified by the prop men for the movie, but it could actually be an antique conversion. Notice how the hammer nose has been reshaped into a firing pin. Note this firing pin is shaped to fire Centerfire cartridges, not Rimfire cartridges, so it is not one of the revolvers modified per the S&W contract.

I had an old Gun Digest article on prop guns. They were using real period* guns long before the Italian clone labs opened. Might a real Remington have lingered in the inventory from 1957 til 1985?

*Mostly. The article showed a one off Walker reproduction made at the horrendous cost - for the 1950s - of $300. This when H. Beam Piper was writing 'Murder in the Gun Room' with a Colt Navy selling high at $65.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

I had an old Gun Digest article on prop guns. They were using real period* guns long before the Italian clone labs opened. Might a real Remington have lingered in the inventory from 1957 til 1985?

*Mostly. The article showed a one off Walker reproduction made at the horrendous cost - for the 1950s - of $300. This when H. Beam Piper was writing 'Murder in the Gun Room' with a Colt Navy selling high at $65.

Pale Rider was made in 1985. This is long after Uberti began making replica firearms. Uberti made their first replica, a replica of the Colt Navy, back around 1959, if I recall correctly. Val Forgett II of Navy Arms worked with Uberti to create their first replica. The thought was, as the centenary of the Civil War was approaching, there would be a lot of interest in firearms of the Civil War. He was correct.

I bought my EuroArms Remington in 1975, so there were plenty of replicas available at that time. Looking at the closeups of Clint's revolver, I honestly cannot tell if it is an original or a reproduction that was modified by the movie prop men.

You are correct though, I cringe every time a 1st Gen Colt is dropped to the floor and kicked across the room in an old Oat Burner. The studios owned lots of them, and they were not worth very much at the time.

The movie prop men were very good at converting firearms. I have read that a lot of the pirate guns you see in the old movies were old Trapdoors converted into pistols. Much quicker to load a blank than recharge a muzzle loader.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Why not do it an easier way when there is one that involves no finagling?

I find putting it on half cock is easier than holding the hammer back a little bit.

To be honest, I never even tried that until you mentioned it.

Anyway, it is pretty ingrained in me to always put the hammer of a revolver with a traditional lockwork to half cock when loading or removing cylinders.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

44 special is OLD! didn’t realize that. I heard .44 smokeless is a very good defense round

Everything is relative.

I live in a town in New England that was founded in 1655. Yes, 1655.

But the last time I visited England (Old England) I stayed in a cottage that was over 500 years old and the locals did not think that was a big deal.

My Dad was born in 1916. That seems a long time ago now, but growing up in the 1950s and 1960s it did not seem so long ago.

Yes, 44 Special is a fairly old cartridge as far as cartridges go, the first cartridges were loaded with 26 grains of Black Powder under a 246 grain bullet. Penetration was 9 pine boards, each 7/8" thick.

Not too much later, no I do not know exactly when, Smokeless powder began to be loaded into the 44 Special.

The Triple Lock I posted earlier is a very old one, the Serial Number is under 200, and it shipped in December of 1907. It is very worn, there is almost no blue left on it, and the grips are very worn. But it is still as tight as the day it left the factory and still shoots just fine.

Since Smith and Wesson developed both the 38 Special and 44 Special cartridges, they usually mark revolvers chambered for those cartridges 44 S&W SPECIAL CTG , or 38 S&W SPECIAL CTG. (CTG simply means cartridge)

Like this:






However that Triple Lock is so old it does not have the word Special in the cartridge marking. Roy Jinks, the official S&W historian, told be they had probably not made up the die that included the word Special in it yet.






Yes, everything is relative. The 38 Special cartridge was developed in 1899, 45 Colt and 44-40 in 1873, and 44 Henry Rimfire around 1860.

 

[StrawHat]

Prior to S&W offering the public the 44 S&W Special, on 12 January, 1907, the Army conducted trials to select a new handgun. The revolver submitted by S&W was the New Century (Triple Lock) but chambered in the 45 S&W Special. They hoped to receive a Government contract. That did not happen and unfortunately S&W shelved their plans to introduce the 45 S&W Special to the public and instead went with the 44 S&W Special. There are 2-3 of the 45 S&W Special revolvers in private hands.

Kevin

 

[APG]

Can you really hot swap a cylinder that fast like in the Pale Rider. Clint Eastwood did it really FAST
View attachment 1099262

I can't do it but Clint can. He's a bad m***er f***er

 

[Mark_Mark]

I can't do it but Clint can. He's a bad m***er f***er

yeah he was!

The Duke was a honest straight shooter, go to church and never lie.

Clint was a “The truth is for people who deserves it”

 

[hawg]

Can you really hot swap a cylinder that fast like in the Pale Rider. Clint Eastwood did it really FAST

He really didn't do it all that fast.

 

[.38 Special]

That scene made an impression on a much younger me, and I had a stainless 1858 at the time. I ultimately was able to do it at least as fast as Clint, but not consistently. Often I would get some sort of a hang up which would bring the whole works to a halt, and I'd have to start over. Keep your center pin greased...

 

[Paul R Zartman]

Yea...they pulled the camera away while he was fiddling with the pin
Jeeze you guys, now I gotta find a couple cylinder holders and one more cylinder for my SS 58' maybe even a Duster like ol Clint is wearin