Belgian Clone of the S&W Frontier Top Break .44

[barnbwt]

Hey guys,
Saw a rather unusual specimen at the Cabela's today, I hope one of ya'll has some experience with this .44 Russian top break. It certaintly looks like a cool design; top-break awesome with .44cal business end . Even if it depends on BP pressures, I imagine it's still pretty capable, and very fun to shoot.

The one I saw had a very tight (good) latch and main hinge, and the overall condition of the revolver was pretty good (ya'know, considering). The exterior was a very consistent matte "blue" patina that looks like it formed after the original finish wore off long ago (if there was one). There was no rust or pitting anywhere, just a few dings and tooling marks. Barrel/rifling was in good shape, cylinder's were clean and smooth. Double action and single action worked (though quite stiff). The main problem I saw was that the extractor star contact points were peened (but not worn), as was the hand protrusion. This caused the lockup to be loose (1/32" each direction) on a couple cylinders, and about half that slop on the others. Needless to say, I wouldn't feel safe shooting it in this condition. End shake was suprisingly pretty low. I forgot to check cylinder gap :banghead:

I really like the layout of the gun, and it does look cool, but can it be made shootable? The price Cabela's wants is north of 150$, which I believe to be a bit steep for a non-functioning S&W clone, but I may try to find one elsewhere for less. How difficult is it to keep these old wheelguns running?

TCB

PS, the photo is not the one I saw. The one in the shop has a much more "weathered" blue/black/dark grey finish, and has (I think) original wood checkered grips.

 

[barnbwt]

Never thought I'd see the day no one one would have an opinion on a gun around here...

TCB

 

[RaceM]

If it's just a problem with peening on the star and hand it shouldn't take much to fix. A few light hammer strokes on the hand & some work with a jewler's file to dress it up. I'd test the lockup at that point (might be just fine), then address the star. Prolly fixable with a blunt punch/drift and file to dress. I rebuilt a 100+ year old top break with similar issues, but couldn't get it perfect. It shot fine anyway.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

I have an original S&W 44 Double Action, chambered for 44 Russian. Here is a photo of it.



The most important difference between mine and the one in your photo is the configuration of the locking slots on the cylinder. It appears that the locking cuts in the cylinder in your photo only engage the bolt at one edge. There is no solid edge to the slot to completely capture the bolt. This means that the bolt only engages the cylinder in one direction and it is the hand that is preventing the cylinder from rolling back the other direction. This was a fairly common configuration with inexpensive revolvers during the 19th Century, particularly inexpensive pocket pistols. S&W never used such an arrangement. Their cylinders always locked up on the bolt in both directions, with a straight edge to the locking slot at both ends.

That is most likely why you are seeing slop in the cylinder lock up. The hand not only rotates the cylinder around, it needs to be pressing solidly against the ratchet teeth to keep the gun safely in battery.

If I was you, I would pass on this gun. I understand your photo is not the actual gun in question. First go back and make sure how the cylinder locks up. If it is as I say, walk away. This needs more than just peening the metal a little bit to stretch it out. It is going to take a skilled gunsmith to weld the right amount of metal back onto both the hand and the ratchet teeth, and then file them to fit properly. I know one Smith who was capable of doing such a job, but unfortunately he is retired now. $150 is no bargain for a gun that will require that kind of work to make it function properly.

There were many copies of S&W designs made in Europe. Some were licensed, most were not. Some were outright forgeries trying to pass themselves off as genuine S&W products. Generally speaking, the copies made by Ludwig and Lowe in Germany and the Tula arsenal in Russia were high quality copies. There were also copies, or counterfeits is probably a better word, made in Belgium, Spain, and Mexico.

According to The Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson, by Supica and Nahas, in the 1890s S&W went as far as to bring legal action against one Belgian firm for marketing counterfeits of the S&W design. After a lengthy legal battle, S&W eventually won their case, resulting in 'heavy damages' to the Belgian firm. Not what we usually expect of Belgian gun makers, who are normally known for high quality, but if it wuz me, I would walk away from that pistol, no matter how cheap it is. And if I did get it repaired, I would never fire anything but Black Powder in it, which is what I do with all my pre 1900 Top Break Smiths, including my 44 Double Action and my New Model Number Three.

 

[barnbwt]

c'mon, Driftwood, you couldn't have posted half an hour sooner? :banghead:

I would walk away from that pistol, no matter how cheap it is.

That's easy for you to say, you already have a S&W no. 3 ! We can't all afford those things! (nor could many back in the day, either, I suppose...)

I did some research, and I learned the functional problems with these revolvers, and checked this one out thoroughly. Since this thing is easily 1/10th as cool as a S&W No. 3, 150$ isn't too bad. I have no intention of shooting (big "if" here) anything hotter than a primer and enough BP to get the round out the end reliably. While these guns, in new/tuned up shape, are safe for .44 Russian (or .44-40, depending on make) at period BP pressure levels, they get beat loose after only a few rounds. Because the delicate hand parts are the only thing containing rotation on one side, peening of the hand and star result quickly (I'll wager the metal itself isn't great on these cast parts either). The "pawl" is just a protrusion on the trigger, not a true spring-loaded automatic pawl like the Smith had (I think). I think this gun was actually messed up by some fool flipping it closed, because it's otherwise in pretty good shape (i.e. frame not stretched, latches/hinges still tight).

Here's a rundown of the functions, since nobody's familiar with this particular gun:
The revolver is a double-action/single-action. As the trigger is pulled, the hammer is cranked back, the pawl raised (rotating the cylinder), and a protrusion on top of the trigger (the "bolt") rise to intercept the notches in the cylinder. When near sear engagement, the bolt is high enough to stop further rotation of the cylinder, and further pressure presses the hand against the ejector star, locking (for a few shots) the cylinder rotation. A little further on the trigger pull, the protrusion seen on the back of the trigger pushes against the sear, releasing the hammer. The hammer is a rebounding type, that cannot move forward (at least with firm thumb pressure) against the primer without the sear releasing first (I believe this was an advanced safety feature at the time that S&W had pioneered). Once the trigger is released, the hammer and hand reset to their starting positions, and the bolt retreats below the cylinder. At this point, the cylinder may spin freely in its cocking direction, but engages the pawl when spun in the opposite direction. Regardless of where the cylinder starts, a trigger pull will align it the same (slightly late timing, in my case).

Just like the No. 3 S&W it rips off, this gun can be loaded with one hand. After sandwiching the barrel in the opposing armpit (not the safest way to load...) the knurled latch at the rear of the topstrap pivots upward with a long thumber reach, and releases the barrel/cylinder assembly. Pivoting the barrel down about the mainhinge engages a cam inside the hinge, which pushes the extractor/casings out about a half inch before snapping down (I think the Smith moves farther, allowing spent shells to fall out). Fired casings are expanded enough to not fall back into their chambers, and can be removed with the fingers easily. After putting in six new rounds, the revolver can then be pushed closed, before bringing it back into firing position. I would prefer to close it with two hands, holding the latch open, so the latch doesn't have to slide over the back of the top strap to close.

Sights are a tiny (1/3" wide, with 1/16" groove) V-groove/blade rear sight, and 1/32" thick half moon front sight that I think was cast with the barrel.

Maybe one day when I have an actual machining setup I'll make some repair parts, but for now this thing is only good for dry firing, very low power loads, and sitting pretty (or ugly, depending on who you ask). Who knows, if this thing truly has no collector's value, I may just cut a secondary lock groove like S&W and rig up a better bolt mechanism, , press in some barrel/cylinder sleeves, and make it a .22LR plinker.

I see these auctioned (and sometimes bought) for well over 200$ online, and most of those are rusted, pitted wrecks that are bound up. If I ever get tired of this thing taking up space, I can always sell it off as a rare antique; "serial number 39" , to some Steampunk fan. But unlike Cabela's, I wouldn't sell it with the pretense of being "firable". At least they didn't say it was a .44magnum

Here's some photos, if anyone knows squat about the proof marks, please let me know. Oh, and some measurements I made with my calipers for anyone interested:

Chamber Diam: .465,.467,.467,.466, .465,.466
Throat Diam: .438, .438, .437, .436, .438, .434
Barrel Length: 5.7
Grooves:.435
Lands: .430
Rotational Slop: .020, .020, .015, .015, .020
The star can rotate ~1-2 degrees relative to the cylinder when open
End Shake: .050
Barrel/Cylinder Gap: as low as .030
Latch Play: none
Hinge Play: I can feel some movement side to side when latched, but immeasurably small
DA Trigger Pull: 18lbs (admittedly unscientific measurment with a fish scale, seems better after light oiling)

SA Trigger Pull: 5lbs (that's more like it )
Weight: 2lbs, 4oz
Markings/stamps:
Serial No. : 39 (frame top, bottom, cylinder, latch, star)
Caliber : 44W (which I believe translates into .44-40 or .44 Russian, need to check)
Maker? : "DF" with an arrow through it to the left
Belgian Proof : "R" with a crown above
Inspection Proof : Backward "P" with a star above it (frame top, bottom, cyl)
Inspection Proof : "L" with a crown (or "W"?) above it (cylinder)
2nd Belgian Proof : Oval with an "E" over "LG" inside it, beneath a crown (cyl)

More fun info from another site:

Think DF with the arrow through it is a trade mark for Dumoulin Freres (Dumoulin Brothers, I believe) which I think was one of bigger Belgian makers and one of the original partners in FN.
Normally there should be a proof of E over LG somewhere in an oval with a crown over it or perhaps a star in the oval (I'm hipshooting from memory here.) The crown over R is a Belgain proof or view mark.
As I understand it, after about 1891 the US required imported items to be marked with country of origin although I'd think it's more common to see "Belgium" marked on the barrel: that's where mine is.
I have a similar gun and don't know if it's .44 S&W or .44-40: both were pretty common.
According to Zhek, et al, such guns were sometimes carried by Russian officers. Probably private purchase in the era of the S&W Russian model revolvers but perhaps still in service as late as WWI.
Belgian stuff was widely distributed all over the world, of course, including the US.

 

[Jim K]

I really love folks who ask for advice or an opinion then, after someone posts a well thought out reply, proceed to tell the responder in detail that they know better and intend to ignore the offered advice.

Jim

 

[barnbwt]

Jim,
I filled out the paperwork and walked out the store with the thing half an hour before anyone posted (and I don't check THR that often, either ). I couldn't find hardly anything online about these guns, so I threw the question up here (and TFL), and let it cook for a day. Once I'd purchased the gun after my own research and went online to write a review, I saw Driftwood's post; I could either make the best of my decision by emphasizing my delight with the revolver, or I could "tear my clothes" and complain to everybody about how this "worthless piece of junk doesn't lock up tight", "it's heavy", "it's ugly"...blah, blah, blah

I did, at least, post a very thorough review of the thing (much more detailed than I could find anywhere) so hopefully someone else can find some info on one of these when they need it. I've never purchased a gun on a "lark" before, but this one really spoke to me, since it's based on what I believe was one of the coolest handgun designs ever.

And as I said, I did understand the issues this/these revolvers have. However, I think it's an interesting piece, and possibly a fun restoration project; if not for firing, then at least for looks, since it has no "intrinsic value". I wouldn't fire a real S&W No. 3 either, and it costs over a grand online! (Granted, some fool on GB wants 500$ for one of these Belgians at the moment ) At least I can get my top-break kicks without breaking the bank on this deal. evil: and I get a muse for the top-break auto-revolver design I've been pursuing...)

TCB

 

[Ash]

As to Belgians being good, in the 1890's and early 1900's, most were pretty rotten. Belgian revolvers were particularly bad (beyond a few, like the Nagant brothers), no better than Spanish revolvers of the day. A huge number of Belgian shotguns were also pretty mediocre. They all looked nice, but they were not nice.

With Belgian shotguns and revolvers, as a general rule, if the company is not familiar (or if it uses deceptive markings that imply S&W or others), then it is not good.

 

[Radagast]

barnbwt:
Thanks for that very detailed post. I found it interesting and educational.

 

[superc_1]

Yes, I am creating another Zombie post, but when we hunt on the Internet for blogs about Belgian clones of the S&W DA Frontiers, this OP is one of the better ones out there, so why not refresh Googles memory of it.

I have one of these myself. Belgian copy of the S&W Frontier in .44. Mine was produced under a military contract and bears the mark (FDC) of one of the bigger Belgian gun makers. Several countries used clone pistols as their official military sidearm. Spain started the ball rolling on the Frontier revolver when a patent court there ruled that S&W's failure to register their trademark or patent there meant those arms could be freely copied. The Army of Spain had just signed a purchase contract with S&W for 50,000 of their Frontier in ..44 but only a tiny few were delivered before the court ruling. The Spanish Army then immediately cancelled their contract and contracted making clones out to several Spanish firms. As was common back then among European gun makers they subcontracted as needed to fill the large order. Within weeks gun shops in Belgium and France were also making parts (and later complete weapons). In Spain the weapon became known as the Model 1884 revolver (in commemoration of the court ruling?). Italy too decided these clones would become an official revolver of their military and or police. So too did Austria and Romania.

Spain of course also had a medium size colony called the Philippines. Many of their 1884 clones (also sometimes called the S&W Model 7) went there. An end result of that was American soldiers fighting the Japanese during WW II sometimes encountered these 44 caliber clones in the hands of their opponents. 1884 revolvers were of course used by both sides in Spanish Civil War.

An interesting footnote about the Spanish variant is during WWI England contracted for several thousand in caliber .455 Webley. The official name for these clones was revolver, old pattern. Mark 1. There was also a Mark 2 and 3 because the lockworks from the different contractors pistols was different. Soldiers called them the Spanish Webley. Presumably someone here knows about them being used by the Austrian/Hungary side in caliber 44 during the same conflict. Many of them of both Spanish and Belgium make can be found in Europe and elsewhere.

Regarding the peening mentioned by OP, in his book, Gunsmithing Guns of the Old West, Mr. Chicone attributes that and frame stretching and looseness in the old top breaks to someone trying a few modern rounds of smokeless powder. Those made in the 19th and early 20th century are ALL black powder only weapons. Yes, S&W was still selling these black powder weapons in the smokeless powder era. Not because the guns were strong enough, but because back then they could get away with it.

Two footnotes regarding S&W. The first being that after the loss of the Spanish Army contract, S&W made durn sure every single gun they thereafter made was registered in Spain and that all of their products bear the Marcas Registrada stamp. The second is that S&W did land a decent contract with the Australian North Territory Police to supply several thousand DA Frontier revolvers in 44-40 and after WWI many of them were given shorter barrels and used for plain clothes work with some being spotted still in service as late as the 1950s.

My own Belgian clone is (like many in central Europe) designed with the .44 Russian in mind. However they bored the cylinder straight through. The result is I experience no difficulty using black powder loaded .44 Special ammunition as well as anything using a cartridge case of similar but shorter dimensions. Below is my own adjacent to one of by period Belgian Bull Dog revolvers. Both are loaded. The S&W clone can of course (and has for fun) use .442 Webley ammo, as well as .44 American, 44 Russian and .44 Special as long as all loads are black powder. It is worth noting my rolling block carbine (discussed elsewhere) can also handle those calibers. I do not attribute the difference in bluing between these guns to bluing type or quality. Rather instead the little one was just tucked away in a drawer somewhere wrapped in grease or something 100 years ago while the big one saw actual use as the wear on the grips (and in the bore) implies.

Most Belgian revolver of the second half of the 19th century use the cylinder notches Driftwood Johnson remarkes upon. Why? Because it was easier and required only one milling operation versus the two cuting the ramp and the notch would entail. Simply press the cylinder against a spinning end mill and the notch and stop on one side are done. The S&W method requires a second time consuming step using what is essentially a woodruff key slot cutter. At black powder pressures it really isn't the issue Mr. Johnson thought it was. Sure, add smokeless powder, peening, frame stretch and loss of head space and that one sided notch can become an issue. Avoid smokeless and it won't be.

Regarding proof marks, ELG in an oval with no crown means proofed in Belgium before 1892. With a crown on top it means proofed after 1892 but before 1915. A crown over an R on the right side of the frame means the bore is rifled and the gun was tested and inspected in the late 1890s because before that there was no inspection for rifling .0. A star or a crown over a single letter is the mark of the inspector himself (called a controller). Records of who these men or women inspectors were did not survive WW2.

What is or isn't a makers mark, a foundry mark, an assembly mark, or even a contracted for mark is best determined by a careful perusal of the marks identified by club little gun (i.e., littlegun.be ).

 

[Radagast]

There were 310 New Model Number Threes with stocks sent to Australia. I had the chance to purchase one for $1800 AUD back in 1988, but passed because I could buy three Iver Johnsons for the same price. I was young and callow. I've kicked myself enough that I should have achieved low earth orbit by now.
I'm unaware of any DA frontiers in OZ service, the Northern Territory at the time would have had a population of only a few thousand: From wiki in 1917:

Of the 4.5 million white Australians living on the continent, only 1,729 lived in the Northern Territory, along with about 1,300 Chinese and an unknown number of Aborigines.

There was a rebellion in the Territory in 1917, resulting in the local governor being evacuated by a navy cruiser. No one was harmed, other than the governor being given a thumping. The rebellion was about 'no taxation without representation', specifically the tax on beer was too high. Which pretty much sums up the Australian viewpoint

 

[Master Blaster]

You could always shoot it with primer only loads and Wax bullets. That way you will not have to do any additional fixing and will not be in any danger. The only downside is that the primer may back out a bit when you fire it.

 

[Jim K]

I hate to extend a zombie thread, but would like to respond to this:

"Belgian gun makers, who are normally known for high quality..."

That is now, when "Belgian" means mainly FNH. In the late 19th century, Belgian gun quality was very spotty, and guns ranged from superb to junk. The vaunted Belgian proof laws gave some assurance against guns that were actually dangerous, but beyond that they did not guarantee quality of materials or workmanship.

Jim

 

[C5rider]

I think we need to get Barnbwt back into this thread and 'splain to us how the gun has worked out since 2012!!!! LOL!

Kind of a "Where are they NOW" of the THR.org.

 

[superc_1]

There may have been some poor qualitty Belgian revolvers. However we should note the arrival in the US of the Webley Bulldog clones from Belgium in the early 1870s nearly destroyed Colt and S&W. Simply because neither firm yet had a good DA design, the Bulldogs could be carried in a pocket comfortably all day and in their .442 caliber were just as good (if not better since they were DA too) at close range self defense as the big clunky SAs from Colt and S&W. Not to mention the minor detail that the Bulldogs sold for about $2 at a time the American guns were selling for $12 or more.

The result was the two companies joining forces to launch a desperate smear campaign very similar to the one American auto makers launched when Japanese made cars began competing against Detroits products a century later. Colt and S&W ran joint ads in multiple newspapers swearing the foreign products were inferior, unsafe suicide specials, and threats to the American economy and only attractive to thugs and women of low morality. The ads were of course total BS and not only did the American consumers keep buying the little foreign beasties but several small American companies began making their own Bulldogs, initially with direct copies of the Belgian versions. In truth, in the highly competitive Post Civil War era both firms nearly vanished and only some frantic last minute military contracts kept them alive as companies.

I have in the past few years acquired and shot about a dozen 19th century Belgium DA revolvers in various calibers (none smaller than 380 Webley, but mostly in one or another kind of 44). If there were poor quality ones, I haven't encountered them yet. Sure they showed wear and I have had to make new trigger springs for several, replace a broken grip for one, adjust timing on another, sand down pits, replace flaked off nickel, and on one install and fit a bronze bushing to replace a wallowed out cylinder pin hole. In short pretty much the same kinds of depot level maintenance I do on 19th century American guns that have seen use. I have fired hundreds of full power BP loads (you can see videos of some of that on plimking.com ) through Belgian revolvers without any problems. Dopes anyone own poor quality Belgium guns? Sure. There are poor quality American guns out there too. Can we say Jennings or Raven? Should I avoid all American guns because of observations made regarding a Raven or a Sterling? Probably not. I define quality in a revolver not by pretty fit or finish, but by functional reliability. If I can pick up a gun 140+ years after manufacture, stuff 5 or 6 shells in it, then rapid fire them with no problems, to me that was quality. LoL, try that with a Clerke or an RG.

I truly believe the main reason the myth of Belgium revolvers of the 19fh century being of low quality persists is, because most of them are in calibers not available commercially since the 1920s and many shooters lack the skill set or desire to make their own ammunition, prefering instead to only buy guns they can get ammo for at Walmart. Yes, in Europe the cylinder notch was usually cut on only one side so it was a sylinder stop rather than a notch. However, again based on experience firing a dozen specimens, all with that feature, it is a difference in manufacturing technique that makes no difference to the end user. Both do work equally well.

 

[superc_1]

There may have been some poor qualitty Belgian revolvers. However we should note the arrival in the US of the Webley Bulldog clones from Belgium in the early 1870s nearly destroyed Colt and S&W. Simply because neither firm yet had a good DA design, the Bulldogs could be carried in a pocket comfortably all day and in their .442 caliber were just as good (if not better since they were DA too) at close range self defense as the big clunky SAs from Colt and S&W. Not to mention the minor detail that the Bulldogs sold for about $2 at a time the American guns were selling for $12 or more.

The result was the two companies joining forces to launch a desperate smear campaign very similar to the one American auto makers launched when Japanese made cars began competing against Detroits products a century later. Colt and S&W ran joint ads in multiple newspapers swearing the foreign products were inferior, unsafe suicide specials, and threats to the American economy and only attractive to thugs and women of low morality. The ads were of course total BS and not only did the American consumers keep buying the little foreign beasties but several small American companies began making their own Bulldogs, initially with direct copies of the Belgian versions. In truth, in the highly competitive Post Civil War era both firms nearly vanished and only some frantic last minute military contracts kept them alive as companies.

I have in the past few years acquired and shot about a dozen 19th century Belgium DA revolvers in various calibers (none smaller than 380 Webley, but mostly in one or another kind of 44). If there were poor quality ones, I haven't encountered them yet. Sure they showed wear and I have had to make new trigger springs for several, replace a broken grip for one, adjust timing on another, sand down pits, replace flaked off nickel, and on one install and fit a bronze bushing to replace a wallowed out cylinder pin hole. In short pretty much the same kinds of depot level maintenance I do on 19th century American guns that have seen use. I have fired hundreds of full power BP loads (you can see videos of some of that on plimking.com ) through Belgian revolvers without any problems. Dopes anyone own poor quality Belgium guns? Sure. There are poor quality American guns out there too. Can we say Jennings or Raven? Should I avoid all American guns because of observations made regarding a Raven or a Sterling? Probably not. I define quality in a revolver not by pretty fit or finish, but by functional reliability. If I can pick up a gun 140+ years after manufacture, stuff 5 or 6 shells in it, then rapid fire them with no problems, to me that was quality. LoL, try that with a Clerke or an RG.

I truly believe the main reason the myth of Belgium revolvers of the 19fh century being of low quality persists is, because most of them are in calibers not available commercially since the 1920s and many shooters lack the skill set or desire to make their own ammunition, prefering instead to only buy guns they can get ammo for at Walmart. Yes, in Europe the cylinder notch was usually cut on only one side so it was a sylinder stop rather than a notch. However, again based on experience firing a dozen specimens, all with that feature, it is a difference in manufacturing technique that makes no difference to the end user. Both do work equally well.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

Thought I would reply to this zombie thread.

If you look closely at the cylinder notches on this S&W Safey Hammerless made in 1896, you will see a faint dark line at the leading edge of the notch. This is a hardened steel insert that S&W pressed into a slot on the cylinder. The purpose of the insert was to cut down on peening of the notch. S&W had found that the softness of the steel, this was before they were hardening their cylinders, led to peening of the slot as the cylinder stop slammed home in rapid double action fire. This has nothing to do with the pressures generated by Black Powder or Smokeless powder, it has to do with the mechanical slamming of the cylinder stop against the notch and the abrupt stop the cylinder experiences.





Was it more expensive to go through all this work to cut the cylinder stop notches? Of course it was. That is the reason inexpensive revolvers of the day, both European and American, used the alternative method of cutting cylinder stop notches. Because it was cheaper.


Here is an inexpensive Black Powder era Iver Johnson revolver. Notice the shape of the cylinder stop notches. As I believe I said a couple of years ago, a notch like this depends on the hand to keep the cylinder in place, to keep it from rotating backwards. As the hand wears, slop sets into the lockup.





Early in the 20th Century Iver Johnson completely redesigned their entire line of revolvers. Here is an example. Notice the shape of the cylinder stop notches, designed for the bolt to keep the cylinder from rotating backwards, not the hand.






As for the story of Colt and S&W mounting an advertising campaign against inexpensive foreign imports, this is the first time I have heard about that. I am not saying it is not true, but I would like to see some sort of documentary evidence to support that statement.



It is absolutely true that there were cheap imports coming from Europe that were poorly made copies of Smith and Wesson revolvers. Take a look at this cheap import from Belgium.




Notice how the shape mimics the shape of a S&W New Model Number Three. Also notice that the trigger guard is crudely screwed to the frame with two screws. Do you see any trigger guard screws on the Smith?






Here is a revolver that is clearly a copy of the S&W Double Action 44 that I posted a photo of a few years ago. Notice the similarity in shape. Notice the trigger guard is screwed on with visible screws. Do you see any trigger guard screws on the Smith? Notice the 'less expensive' method of cutting the cylinder stop notches.





And some of the guns being imported from Belgium were just plain flat out forgeries. Some had the gall to stamp words like Russian Model right on the gun. Wish I had a photo of that.

I do not know about a conspiracy by American arms makers to keep cheap imports out of the country. I do know that in the 19th Century there was not much international law for American companies to fall back on, so I do not fault them for trying to keep inferior products out of he country.



Yes, S&W did keep selling their old Black Powder designs into the beginning of the 20th Century. But if you read their catalogs, you can see they were recommending against using Smokeless powder in their revolvers during the early part of the 20th Century.

 

[Jim K]

The "one-way" cylinder stop notches were used not only because they were cheaper to cut. They had to be used because the cylinder stop was part of the trigger, rising up as the trigger was pulled back. The cylinder stop surface on the cylinder had to have a long leade because otherwise the stop in the trigger would hit the cylinder and keep it from turning.

The obvious drawback was that the cylinder was locked in one direction only when the trigger was back and in the other direction was stopped by the hand or not stopped at all. That could mean that when the trigger was released, the hand dragged the cylinder backward and the user could end up trying to fire the same cartridge over and over.

Most of those guns prevented that by the simple fact that the hammer did not rebound, so the firing pin in a fired primer prevented the cylinder from turning either way with the hammer down after firing one shot.

But leaving the hammer down had safety implications, and most revolvers that were safe against being dropped had rebounding hammers, which prevented leaving the firing pin in the primer. Further, while a rebounding hammer was not necessary in a top break revolver, it was almost a necessity in a side-swing revolver. Swinging out the cylinder was nearly impossible with the firing pin in a fired primer, so a rebound hammer was needed. And that meant the cylinder had to be locked by some other means, which meant an independent cylinder stop, not part of the trigger.

See how simple it is?

Jim

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy Again

Smith and Wesson got around this problem by having a relatively complicated 'pair' of cylinder stops, if you will. The rear slot in these photos is for a conventional spring loaded cylinder stop that rose as the hammer was cocked or the trigger pulled, popping into a locking slot on the cylinder in a conventional manner.

The front slot is for a nub on the front of the trigger that rose up when the trigger was released. This nub was not spring loaded, it was a physical part of the trigger. So in practice, the spring loaded stop stayed up while the hammer fell. But then as the trigger was released, the spring loaded stop retracted while at the same time the nub on the front of the trigger rose up to keep the cylinder from rotating.









This arrangement required pairs of locking slots on the cylinder, the front oval shaped slots are for the nub on the trigger, the rectangular slots to the rear are for the spring loaded cylinder stop. Since the nub on the trigger was not spring loaded, if the gun were closed without first lining up a chamber with the bore, the nub would have contacted the cylinder, preventing the action from closing. So the long vertical slots are clearance cuts to allow the cylinder to close without lining a chamber up with the bore. If one happens to close the action with the nub lined up with the small area without a vertical slot, the action cannot be closed.






This 'double stop' arrangement was also use on the smaller 38 and 32 caliber pocket pistols. By the 3rd Model of both the 32 and 38 pocket pistols S&W changed the lockwork, doing away with the 'dual stop' mechanism in favor of a single spring loaded stop. However the unusual 'double stop' mechanism remained throughout the entire production run of the larger 44 caliber double action revolvers, it was never modified to a simpler design. The 44 Double Action in this photo was made in 1881, the 3rd Model 38 Double Action was made in 1888.

 

[MrBorland]

Yes, I am creating another Zombie post, but when we hunt on the Internet for blogs about Belgian clones of the S&W DA Frontiers, this OP is one of the better ones out there, so why not refresh Googles memory of it.

We don't do zombie threads here. This zombie ran for a bit because there's been some good info added, but it now seems a good time to thank everyone and move on.